From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article GNOME was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Linux (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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-Class article 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.
WikiProject Free Software / Software / Computing  (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Free Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of free software 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-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Mid-importance).
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg 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)

Restructuring the entire article[edit]

  1. Artistic design – look and feel, ergonomics, GNOME HIG!!!, Icons, Themes, Concept(s)
    1. Compatibility – ? move somewhere else
    2. Overview
    3. Features
  2. Software architecture and componentsall the technical stuff, diagrams, no screenshots
    1. GNOME "Platform" ... is cross-platform!
      1. on Linux: systemd, journald, logind, pulseaudio, networkmanager, packagekit, GSettings, etc.
      2. GLib, GTK+, Clutter
    2. GNOME Core Applications
  3. Applications
    1. GNOME Games
    2. GNOME Office
    3. GNOME Chemistry Utils
    4. Third party GTK+ applications
  4. Development – people, procedures, GUADEC, etc.
    1. ?GNOME Developer Tools?
    2. Release cycle
    3. Developer meetings
  5. History
    1. GNOME 2
    2. GNOME 3
    3. Releases
  6. See also
  7. References
  8. External links

User:ScotXWt@lk 17:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

What about moving the History section before a bunch of minimally relevant chemistry applications appear? I agree with the overall structure of sections and content, but I fail to grasp the reasoning behind their order. --Sisgeo (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes the history-section contains good stuff, sometimes it does not. Anyway, when I read an article about software, I am usually interested in the software architecture, workings, etc. and not in the history. Hence, I don't see why the history should come first. But that is my opinion. User:ScotXWt@lk 17:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
"Design" and "Software architecture and components" are two ways to say the same thing. These sections should be merged. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 15:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not totally sure what you were trying to do here [1] but you removed this talk page's header so I've added it back. Also note that you should not generally be removing your own posts after someone has replied to them except in exceptional cases like your post was a copyvio and even then you should generally keep the replies. Nil Einne (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
In this case, "design" equals for me geometry, button sizes, colors, etc., while "software architecture" describes (at various zoom-levels) how the different components interact with one another. Most WP articles about software are shit, they merely list "features" instead of explaining this. For examples this picture here: illustrates software architecture on a very high level. This: is more detailed. One can argue about the level of details for a good WP article, but a mere feature list, is (or rather should be) an insult to any encyclopedia.
As you can see e.g. here: Talk:GNOME_Shell#Questions_to_improve_article_quality_2014, one problem I see, is a missing term for what the GNOME Shell actually is. If you call it a GUI, how do you distinguish it from the GUI that any software with a graphical interface features? Some GNOME and KDE developers call it a UX (for "User Experience"). This should have been sorted out years ago in an encyclopedia, and I wonder why it wasn't. Too much bullying around? I'll stick around for a while longer, but eventually ... User:ScotXWt@lk 10:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree about necessity to expand the lists that have plagued this article. Still, I see a big WP:verifiability problem with doing so: it is difficult to find reliable sources that cover the look&feel aspect of GNOME in detail, while information based on blogs and forum threads (way more specific and detail-rich) neither is allowed by Wikipedia rules, nor will survive long enough to be worth spending time writing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 13:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't reject "verifiability" per se, but I dislike how it is used to create the dictatorship of online or print media. If only blogs write about some stuff, it is very easy to claim it is not noteworthy. Without using one's brain, this could harm the Wikipedia. A concrete problem I see, as I already wrote, is the discrimination between GUI (any graphical program has one) and UX (i.e. GNOME Shell, KDE Plasma, Mac OS X corespondent, etc. User:ScotXWt@lk 18:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, most ways of "using one's brain" to circumvent WP:V harm Wikipedia much more. That is basically the only reason WP:V exists. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 19:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
A strong claim. Please do not juggle around with it, but be specific about it. User:ScotXWt@lk 12:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

GNOME next[edit]

AFAIK, when GNOME 3.14 is releases, the release notes only mention the diff to GNOME 3.13.9, so in case we want to document the diff of GNOME 3.14 to GNOME 3.12, we need to do this incrementally, i.e. diff between 3.12 and 3.13.1, 3.13.2, etc. User:ScotXWt@lk 10:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

  1. Release announcements on list changes since prevoius stable version.
  2. Table entry consisting solely of future release version number and TBA is useless at best, and violates WP:CRYSTAL for nothing.
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 14:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
See it as an invitation. Source for the diffs between GNOME-package 3.13.1 and 3.13.2 e.g.: . GLib has its own page, so do GTK+ and some of the applications, e.g. GNOME Files. What changes are noteworthy for the GNOME page?
Are there release notes for GNOME 3.12 that mention more extensively the differences between 3.12 and 3.10? User:ScotXWt@lk 18:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Did you ever notice WP:NOTNEWS? And what about WP:NOTCHANGELOG? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 19:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Operating systems[edit]

The field |operating system= currently contains "Unix-like with X11 or Wayland", which is rather misleading: GNOME does not compile and run on anything but GNU/Linux. Thanks to porting efforts, FreeBSD and OpenBSD run some subsets of GNOME, albeit large enough to mention these OSs in infobox. GNOME does not run on any other OS due to Linux-specific dependencies. The field in infobox should be |operating system=Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 08:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Gnome does not have hard dependencies on Linux. There are some components that integrate with Linux technologies. Requiring patches to package some piece of software is not evidence to the contrary. Next to no larger application simply packages for Linux distributions. See [2] for example. 19 files, of which only one is the actual source archive. No offense but “some patches are required, therefore it does not run” shows a deep misunderstanding about how software packaging works. Not every bit of distro adaptation is expected to be done upstream. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, Gnome does not have hard dependencies on Linux: on other systems you still get some subset of Gnome, albeit lacking many of the advertised capabilites. Several components depend on systemd (including logind and udev), networkmanager, bluez, NSS, etc. FWIW automounting and network management are critical for desktop environment, so in the end Gnome on BSDs does not provide the same experience as on Linux, needless to say about Solaris or AIX. So far PC-BSD and OpenBSD are the only non-Linux systems that ship more or less modern GNOME, and the amount of work required to keep these ports going is nowhere close to those 18 mostly trivial integration patches you link. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I consider cross-platform misleading (= [weasel words]) and Unix-like inaccurate. (=[weasel words]) The term comprises UNIX® certified OSes (= OS X, Solaris, IRIX, Tru64 UNIX, IBM AIX, etc.) plus Linux and ALL the BSDs. E.g. udev or Direct Rendering Infrastructure are not in POSIX, software that depends on them will not run on all Unix-like systems. We need to distinguish. User:ScotXWt@lk 11:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, |operating system=[[Unix-like]] is OK for software that indeed runs on any Unix with minor difficulties and does not differ significantly from one Unix-like system to another. But this is not the case here, as Gnome 3 behaves on Linux differently from other Unix-like platforms in several ways that are critical to its function. That is: |operating system=[[Unix-like]] was true for Gnome 1.x and 2.x, but it is not true for Gnome 3.x any more. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 13:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)