Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 91 to 95 of 95

Thread: Ubuntu Unity Existed Before The GNOME Shell?

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    201

    Default

    Hmm, if you continue this please then tell in following posts what were your opinion about who did what first.

    I have completely lost what is your opinions in this arguing about arguing

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moilami View Post
    Hmm, if you continue this please then tell in following posts what were your opinion about who did what first.

    I have completely lost what is your opinions in this arguing about arguing
    Seems, that I was right about RahulSundaram was trying to distract people.

    However, I didn't really have an opinion about who was first, instead I questioned in how far you can tell at all, when a software project starts to exist.
    To go further, I think, such a project clearly exists, when there is a usable stable release.

    On the one hand, still, that doesn't mean there is no existence before. In addition, stability is a rather subjective measure, too, which make the concept of "existed before" even more fuzzy.
    On the other hand, you may know that already having a design of the software can be more worth than the code itself. The bigger the project, the more worth to the design.

    It is obvious, that the code of the gnome shell was publicly available before Unity's (surprisingly I was accused for doubting that, although I never did). But does this mean, code being written in private doesn't exist at all? I understand, how people consider such code worth nothing in the open-source community, but personal consideration doesn't make this (non-)existent, does it? You could also argue, that Unity is (or at least was) a plain redesign of the Ubuntu Netbook Remix and it should also be obvious, that Unity wouldn't be, where it is right now, without that UNR. In that case, the start of existence was between the time of UNR and the first commit to Unity, but to find an accurate date within that timeline is hardly possible.

    Another indicator used in here was the public announcement. As this was not equally sufficient for both projects, it was gone back to public presence of LoC. But on what basis? Why should this actually be a valid move, if there are more indicators, which could be considered? Why only this one? It seems pretty random to me.

    There are far more indicators, which could be used to show the existence of such a project and most, if not all of them, lead to a different date. Therefore picking one of them is just random and, especially subjective and selective (both of the terms seem to be more important here, than I expected first). If you pick all of them, it's pretty much a stable release, but that, of course, ignores all the previous work. That led me to the conclusion, that the concept of "existed before" does not make sense at all.
    Last edited by alexThunder; 03-13-2013 at 12:01 PM.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alexThunder View Post
    There are far more indicators, which could be used to show the existence of such a project and most, if not all of them, lead to a different date. Therefore picking one of them is just random and, especially subjective and selective (both of the terms seem to be more important here, than I expected first). If you pick all of them, it's pretty much a stable release, but that, of course, ignores all the previous work. That led me to the conclusion, that the concept of "existed before" does not make sense at all.
    I do not care at all. It is Canonical who is making a big deal out of it and that they were "first".

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bkor View Post
    I do not care at all. It is Canonical who is making a big deal out of it and that they were "first".
    Actually it was just a comment from Shuttleworth responding to another comment. Phoronix made this a big deal.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alexThunder View Post
    Actually it was just a comment from Shuttleworth responding to another comment. Phoronix made this a big deal.
    To me, Mark is Canonical. Phoronix has loads of articles per day. I wouldn't say this article is any different than any other Phoronix article. E.g. even in an email where I say "Just trolling", it is taken as news.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •