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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Graphic design, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of graphic design-related subjects 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Macintosh, iOS and related topics 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.
GIMP is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a collaborative attempt at improving Wikimedia content with the help of openly licensed materials and improving Wikipedia articles related to openness (including open access publishing, open educational resources, etc.). If you would like to participate, visit the project page for more information.
The article variously states that the GIMP project is conducted under some other banner, either GNOME or GNU. This is going to be confusing to the reader. A clearer statement should be attempted of what the relationships of these projects are. Samsara 11:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Note that GTK+ is also in the list of GNU software and hosted on git.gnome.org, and is rather a significant part of the GNOME project, being the GUI toolkit used by GNOME.
So I'm not sure what the heck the correct answer is.
According to the GNU Software Evaluation page on the GNU project's Web site, a free-software project can be offered to GNU as a "GNU project", and they decide whether to include it or not. "What it means for a program to be a GNU package" has a bunch of criteria. Some key ones are:
Making a program GNU software means that its developers and the GNU project agree that “This program is part of the GNU project, released under the aegis of GNU”—and say so in the program.
This means that you normally put the program releases on ftp.gnu.org.
This means that the official web site for the program should be on www.gnu.org, specifically in /software/PROGRAMNAME. Whenever you give out the URL for the package home page, you would give this address. It is ok to use another site for secondary topics, such as pages meant for people helping develop the package, and for running data bases. (We can make an exception and put the web pages somewhere else if there is a really pressing reason.)
So, for the GIMP and the GNU Project:
ftp.gnu.org has only a gimp.README file that says "Gimp is an image manipulation program, available from ftp.gimp.org in the /pub/gimp/stable/ directory. The Gimp web site is http://www.gimp.org."; I guess "normally" in "you normally put the program releases on ftp.gnu.org" allows a project not to have ftp.gnu.org be the download site, as long as you at least leave a breadcrumb there to lead people to its true home.
As for the other criteria, they do, at least, say "GNU/Linux" on the features page for the GIMP, and it probably follows the GNU command-line argument standards; whether they use GUILE as an extension language is another matter.
So I guess it could be considered to be a GNU program; I don't know whether anything more than that would be required to be "developed under the GNU banner".
As for GNOME, well, the GNOME Applications page speaks of "Hundreds of applications" that "are available for GNOME", and says that "Here are just some of the great applications that you can use on GNOME", introducing a list that includes the GIMP, but that's not as strong as "applications that are part of GNOME" or "...that are components of GNOME", so they're not as explicitly saying "it's GNOME software" as the GNU folks are saying "it's GNU software".
So, I'd say the case is better for GNU than GNOME, although I doubt GIMP is mentioned in either the GNU project or the GNOME project's weekly staff meetings. :-) Guy Harris (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The change from "Mac OS X" to "OS X" happened with Mountain Lion, so the risk with using "OS X" is that semi-knowledgeable readers may infer based on official naming that only versions from Mountain Lion (10.8) onwards are supported if it's stated that support is for "OS X". As I mentioned in the edit summary, binary versions as far back as Tiger (10.4) are available, and compiling on older systems can probably be made to work (so in the absence of conclusive reliable sources, we shouldn't state that it can't, and in general it would be odd for FOSS to not offer some kind of workaround involving successive compiling of various legacy/non-legacy versions of various dependencies... not to mention legacy versions of Gimp are still Gimp... I digress). I won't revert the change, but if there's consensus that it's potentially confusing in the way I think it is, all the other relevant changes made by the same user need to be investigated as well - in some cases, if support is only from Mountain Lion onwards or later, the change may be sound; in others, it will be misleading. Samsara 14:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't address the problem. Yes, the two product lines are continuous with each other, and therefore having one article covering both is unproblematic; however, each product name also only applies to some of the releases - Mac OS X from 10.0 to 10.7, OS X from 10.8 to current. Therefore mentioning only OS X could be interpreted as referring only to releases 10.8 onwards. Samsara 15:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
It does address the problem. They're the same product as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I have and run both. Their branding does not affect nomenclature or use in practice. Therefore listing both separately and pointing to the same article is misleading, breaks WP:REPEATLINK, WP:LINKCLARITY and logic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Nobody said they have to both be wikilinked, or separately wikilinked. I think the distinction should be made in text, and I think I've given some very good reasoning why. Samsara 15:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)