No the arguments can't be moot because,
1) productivity is not just based on speed (i.e. time management)
2) speed is also based on the user's knowledge and skills with utilizing certain aspects of a feature (say mouse clicks vs. hotkeys)
3) You were the one who lumped the other side as all not using measured results so you raised the issue. By calling it a moot argument, you would be calling your own original statement a moot argument.
4) Blind tests are more important than being opened to measured results. In fact, while opening up is important to users less willing to experiment, it is also deadly for more intelligent users who might be biased towards a positive result.
5) A small increase in productivity can't make up for the longer time to adopt a new piece of interface and Linux by default is plagued with other areas that are just as time consuming besides the DE/WM.
Mind you you're wrong. It doesn't require any advanced user to keep up with developments to know how dynamic Linux WMs can be. You're showing your faulty prejudices here.
You can't even figure out something as basic as I think Linux WMs are dynamic so just because I raised the issue of Gnome 3 you immediately assumed:
Sure it is not for you because you're not even keeping up with the changes in the WM and you are not even sure how those DE's are changed or from where they are forked and for what purpose.
...when caught on this you went back on your statement and rephrased the question into:
How many of them were more productive and eye candy or say polished at the same time? There was nothing unique in them when they were just mimicking the traditional desktop features that you can find on any other desktop. Problem with linux haters is that they're open to apple or windows innovation in UI or some design crap but if open source community does any innovation there is criticism for the sake of it, atleast criticism out of no strong points.
Problem with people with prejudices is that they jump to conclusions.
1) Desktop features can still mean many things depending on how the usability goes. It's not traditional vs. new but you're trying to lump those to paint a straw man where you can then argue against "criticism out of no strong points".
2) Many Windows user do use things like BB4Win.
3) If Gnome 3 was polished, there wouldn't have been as much complaints.
4) You talk all these good game but really the only example you have stated so far is Gnome 3 and the only thing you have hidden behind so far is Gnome 2. I don't deny that you may be more knowledgeable and aggressive at keeping up with news of development but it's like a mainstream fan talking about mainstream stuff and then railing all about polish and then flip flopping and talking about productivity all without defining much of them and when asked for proof after raising their measured data argument, then goes back on their statement and just say the argument is moot and you have to be open to the argument at the same time.
Sorry. Your vague line is contradictory. You can't say you follow developments only to say it's all about productivity only to then say it has to be polished only to then say some other things when the context was whether Linux simply has dynamic WMs/DEs. You're making new criterias as you're caught when you know my original statement is true so long as you don't make statements as as you go along:
Even in pre-Gnome 3 days there were many WMs/DEs unique to Linux especially when you factor in other micro-apps that change how windows are managed but are not full shells.
As small as these were, these were generally what got people excited about windows management in general and you didn't have to be a techie or a Linux user or even a constant development news stalker to grasp your mind around that these were fresher concepts that didn't need to hide behind what's new or old or mainstream.
The fact is you've already listed the facts:
MATE came after Gnome 3 because G3 is bad/was not polished. If you want to soften it up then fine: Gnome 3 is mediocre/above average/average.
MATE came after Gnome 3 because people wanted Gnome 2 but there was no way to go back to Gnome 2 on Gnome 3.
Hence from the beginning it was bad. Again, two words forced change
. You want to make it semantic with things like settings, fine: forced default change
It doesn't matter what new things you keep bringing up. You were the one who first replied to me, I clarified what my post meant based on your initial statements, and I simply replied based on the information you wrote at the time.
Not only that, some of the new issues you bring up are pretty sketchy. MATE never retained gnome 2 completely. That was one of the arguments why people constantly railed on Gnome 3. They said MATE is not just doing it for them.
...then some of the things you insert are flat out malicious. Secretly injecting the word superiority so that you can argue that Gnome 3 is superior for example:
Your asssume that MATE retains the superiority of old interface with that fork
I'm not saying you're intentionally planning it out but come on! Show a little sincerity here will you?
Is it really that hard for you to get the hard fact that Gnome 2 came before Gnome 3 and MATE only gained in popularity after because Gnome 3 wasn't doing it for certain people?
Is it so hard to understand that MATE's maturity is linked to the maturity of Gnome 3 because MATE's maturity is linked to getting back the maturity of Gnome 2?
Some of the new stuff you're bringing up are just so weird. You realize how close you sound like a cult member when you say things like:
open source community always cares for people
It's all over the place. Again, I probably won't get you because you're accusing me of making shit up and by showing you where you're making shit up it's probably coming off like now I'm the one accusing you back but you have to see some of the obvious faulty jumps to logic you're making up.