|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
 B |
This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Top |
This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
|
edit · history · watch · refresh  To-do list for GNOME: |
|
- Address the identity crisis regarding "GNOME Applications", probably by addressing the Bindings vs Platform thing (will have to wait until there's consensus within the actual project for this one)
- Expand the look and feel section to better explain what actually using a GNOME desktop feels like; widgets metrics, button functionality etc.
|
 |
A version of this article was copyedited by Paulmnguyen, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on November 1, 2010. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page. |
|
|
|
|
|
[edit] Controversy over GNOME 3
I've split out the controversy section to the separate article. May be the usability section should be updated about GNOME 3? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think the whole article structure should be changed to follow a more standard layout, like that of Mac OS X which is a wp:good article. I propose to combine the usability sub-section with Look and feel to form a "Features" section and to transform Project goals et al. into Description. Also, they should describe GNOME 3 because that's how GNOME is now. --Canaima (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- The article is facing more complex problem now: some its parts are about the software, others about the community. I believe the general overhaul is needed, splitting the community section out and updating the article to reflect the GNOME 3. The remaining GNOME 2 bits should be moved to MATE, which is the successor of GNOME 2 platform.
- That said, I'm not sure the GNOME 3 should be covered now, as the majority of linux distributions and all of BSDs (in stable releases) still ship GNOME 2, AFAIK. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, I'm assuming it's going to focus on the software; as suggested above a community section should be started here and then split into a GNOME Project article, for now let's just move down and fix the Community section. I don't agree about MATE because it's a fork, GNOME 2 shoud be covered in History. Also, it should be about GNOME 3 to keep the article current about its subject. Of course, it should mention what OSes use it. --Canaima (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- How much of this controversy article is original research? How much is based on opinion? It seems awfully essay-like to me.--RadioFan (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is entirely based on sources. I don't see that issue. If You do, go ahead and fix it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
-
- I vote for that Controversy over GNOME 3 keep being a separate article, separating Controversy articles from the main is customary according to WP standards. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 10:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
To-do list for GNOME:
