Jump to content

Talk:GNOME/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:GNOME
(Redirected from Talk:GNOME/Archive1)
Archive 1Archive 2

Non-NPOV w/r/t KDE?

KDE bashing?

I'll see if anyone posts comments on it first, but I don't really see the need for the large paragraph which basically seems to insult KDE. If there were a whole bunch of contraversies regarding the licenceing of KDE, surely they should live on the KDE page? I'd perfer to just shorten this to a sentance saying GNOME was started as KDE was based on QT, which at the time was not under the GPL. --Mrjeff

The license issue is very controversial -- it took quite a few revisions to arrive at the current one. It explains that there was once a serious problem with the licensing of Qt... most of which was fixed with the dual licensing, but for many people there are still issues to do with the full GPL being used. Quite where you see an insult is a bit of a mystery. Removing it, or leaving out that there are still issues, is not an option as far as I'm concerned. --Motor 00:08, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I should also add that it is on the GNOME page because it was the main reason the GNOME project was started and the main reason why the desktop schism still exists. --Motor 00:12, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What were these "alleged violations" of the GPL? Was there "considerable disagreement" of licencing it under the GPL, at least any more than there is considerable disagreement about almost every program's licence including the kernel, GNOME, gcc, apache, php, etc. I've heard complaints about GNOME being under the LGPL (people who think it should be BSDed). Again, I think that this should just be reduced to "controversy", and the actual problems moved to the KDE page. I feel that the wording was written by a pro-GNOME person, and is written in an anti-KDE way. --Mrjeff 15:51, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Originally, the QT license was was most certainly unacceptable, and several pieces of software were ported to KDE effectively violating the GPL, this was before it was dual-licensed... this is all documented. [1] As stated in the article, most licensing issues were sorted out when Qt was dual licensed, but this is still controversial for some people (and companies). As for whether it was written by a Pro-GNOME person, I take offense at that -- since I wrote it. I originally wrote "mostly resolved" in respect of the license issues (you can check this in the history) because I didn't want to get involved in license fights and arguing with KDE supporters, but some people seemed determined to remove even the "mostly" and airbrush the issue completely. So, I felt it appropriate to address the issue in more detail -- hence I expanded it to include the resolution and continuing issues with the full GPL. I'm still unsure what's anti-KDE about a statement regarding the origins of QT (which are well-documented), and the full GPL issue, and it most certainly does belong in a section covering the origins of GNOME since it is the single biggest reason for its existence and the main reason which keeps the desktops apart. --Motor 19:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

GNOME vs KDE

Personally, while we're on the Gnome vs kde thing, could we also include maybe a discussion of their technical merits? -- Maru Dubshinki 01:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We weren't "on the GNOME vs KDE thing". The last thing this article needs is a GNOME vs KDE discussion of technical merits -- not only would such a thing be trollbait, it would add nothing and really has no place. --Motor 09:22, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
Detailing how the two main desktops stack up 'adds nothing'?? Are you serious? Discussing the merits of the twain- as long as it is NPOV- is definitely something that should be included. And just because it is trollbait, I suppose that means it should be shunned and removed- hey, while we're at it, lets take down the Adolf Hitler article as well! --maru 16:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It adds up to nothing that this wikipedia article can use. "Discussing the merits of the twain- as long as it is NPOV- is definitely something that should be included." No it's not. I'll repeat myself (see KDE talk) if you want to write a review/comparison of the two desktops... do it somewhere else. This is an article about GNOME, it's not a review, it's not a "please do/don't use GNOME" article, and it's not a howto (and obviously the same applies to the KDE article). As for the "trollbait"... if you want to take it out of context, fine, but what I said was: "add nothing to the article and be trollbait". So let's forget about your spurious Hitler reference, and besides I can't find any "Hitler vs Stalin, who was the biggest mass murdering dictator" section on his wikipedia article. Controversy is fine if it adds something. Controversy just for the sake of it is a pointless waste of time. And BTW: you've approached this from the beginning as a confrontation between GNOME/KDE using words like "biggest competitor" (but actually if you want to be exact GNOME's biggest competitor is Windows). It's not and, again as I said before, this isn't slashdot it's wikipedia. There are lots of desktops for Unix-like systems. KDE is only mentioned in this article in respect to the origins of GNOME. Some people have started pages such as Comparison of email clients, but you'll notice that those compare *many* clients and limit themselves to describing specific functionality in a table (virtually impossible with huge projects such as KDE and GNOME). Addition: I should also add that if you get the idea of creating a page just to compare KDE and GNOME I will put it up for speedy deletion. if you want to create a page comparing the various desktop environments in the same style as Comparison of web browsers or Comparison of Linux distributions, that's up to you. --Motor 18:01, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
Merely being of too narrow a focus (in your opinion) is not a criterion for speedy deletion. --Deh 19:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, but being a blatant trolling attempt is -- and that's what someone creating such an article would be doing. In addition: Are you also going to accept the hundreds of combinations of pointless GNOME/KDE/XFCE/xxx vs desktop-of-choice articles too? How about the app categories and distros that currently have one "comparison of" article. Why not break those out too: Evolution vs Kmail, KMail vs Sylpheed, Sylpheed vs Mutt... or how about Galeon vs Firefox, Galeon vs Internet Explorer, Galeon vs KMelon... or maybe Red Hat verus Gentoo, Gentoo versus Debian... and so on. All with their own separate pointless articles. So yes, I'll put such an article up for speedy deletion, and if that's rejected put it up for a vote. --Motor 20:37, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
Some of those aren't bad ideas; but given that Gnome and kde are in basically the same ecological niche (ie kde isn't competing with fluxbox; gnome isn't competing with Icewm.) a comparison is valid, just as a page comparing the three competitors for 'general-purpose OS' with Mac, Linux and Windows is a valid article. Some of your suggestions are flawed- Galeon doesn't have anywhere near enough marketshare to be really competing with anyone. That article would be more properly IE vs Firefox (and maybe opera as well). Ditto for those distros: are they in the same niche? Is Red hat trying to win over Gentoo's users and vice versa? Are they designed to fulfill the same needs? Is it an invalid comparison, a comparison of Red Hat vs Gentoo, like SuSe vs Damn Small Linux vs Linux From Scratch would be? I'd say yes, and I think most voters would agree. (Just a side note: I don't think a Hitler vs Stalin article would be too controversial- last I heard Stalin had beat Hitler by several millions, and that's a pretty objective metric anyways, unlike most controversies.) If anyone else should like to weigh in on whether such a section would be *useful* and *informative*, I'd appreciate it. --maru 21:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Who mentioned comparing window managers and desktop environments? No-one suggested comparing icewm or fluxbox. You'll notice that I specifically use the words "desktop environments". KDE and GNOME are in the same ecological niche as Windows, Mac OSX, XFCE, GNUStep etc etc... but so what? An article just to compare KDE and GNOME is not valid and a waste of time. Galeon was merely an example -- and who are you to say that it has too small a "marketshare"? Compared to what? Compared to Windows, both KDE and GNOME are mere blips. As I pointed out before, looking at your posts here and in the KDE talk you are approaching this as some kind of battle between KDE and GNOME "I mean, that's one of the major disputes these days isn't it?", which makes me extremely suspicious of your motives. And again, your initial justification was that KDE was GNOME's "biggest competitor", and it is not... Windows is. When I listed the potential "X vs Y" articles it wasn't to set up an opportunity to nitpick, it was to demonstrate that there is a ridiculous number of combinations of pointless articles that are already covered in "Comparison of X". As I said, if you want to start a Comparison of desktop environments article in which you have a table of features marking out the difference between GNOME/KDE/XFCE/GNUSTEP/Windows/Mac, go for it (but even that's a waste of time, IMO). But if you add a comparison to KDE section to this article I'll revert it, and if you start a "comparison of KDE and GNOME" article I'll put it up for deletion, or probably move it to a more general Comparison of desktop environments. Again, you started this in the KDE talk page by claiming that you wanted help "making a decision about using KDE or GNOME". You're in the wrong place for that. Find a site that does reviews or has Q&A forums where you can ask for opinions. --Motor 21:49, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)


Article improvements

There are many things that (unlike a GNOME vs KDE section) this article really could use:

  • Some new screenshots!
  • More details on how freedesktop relates to GNOME. --Motor 22:19, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
  • More on the role of the GNOME foundation -- it's not a technical decision board, for example. --Motor 13:52, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
  • Some mentions of prominent GNOME developers perhaps.
  • The relationship between GNOME and GTK. How some development code was created in GNOME and eventually got pushed down into GTK, for example.
  • How GNOME is developed. An explanation of the GNOME development releases... a mention of things like jhbuild. More on language bindings -- does GNOME still have a language bindings release which coordinates the bindings for all the different bindings? I remember reading that GNOME did two releases "development platform" and "GNOME desktop"... true?... still? The release process: how code gets frozen upwards from GTK.
  • A section on developing software that uses the GNOME facilities.
  • There are technical documents on the GNOME developer site covering the architecture of GNOME (dependencies and such). Lots of material could be incorporated into a technical section.
  • A future development section (DBUS; the discussions of moving some kind of virtual machine into GNOME; how things like cairo will affect GNOME; and far-off things like GNOME Storage). There's a GNOME developer wiki full of discussions of where GNOME will go in 3.0... how it will make other users top level objects on the desktop turning GNOME into a more social interface... etc.

--Motor 09:19, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

New Screenshots

  • There actually already exists some newer screenshots of GNOME on wikipedia:
Debian
File:Screenshot-6.png
Fedora Core:
File:Fedora1.jpg
Gnoppix
Java Desktop System
Morphix
Red Hat Enterprise Linux
File:RHEL.png
Solaris 10
[[image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|250px]]
Ubuntu 5.04:
File:Ubuntu504.png
Ubuntu 5.10:
Maybe it would be a good idea to use some of these existing screenshots, as it would also be a good and natural way to link to some distributions that ship GNOME. Any suggestions on which screenshots to include? - David Björklund 00:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Essentially, the thinking behind the two (badly out of date screenshots) was: One screenshot should be clean (no fancy fonts or splashy desktop wallpaper), simple, attractive and have certain apps open... browser, images, and maybe a word processor/spreadsheet)... all arranged in a reasonably attractive fashion. The second screenshot would demonstrate the internationalisation stuff. The current ones came from the official GNOME site, sometime around 2.2 (I think... it was quite a while back). I wouldn't go overboard on the number of screenshots myself... two is enough. As for linking to distributions -- it'd be better to stick with distro neutral screenshots and leave the, for example, fedora screenshot on the fedora page. On suggestion: It might be worth a look on art.gnome.org or even asking on their forums for candidates shots to demonstrate the internationalisation and general features. Motor 01:11, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Gnome popularity

Quoting from GNOME desktop: "...and many users of GNU/Linux systems favor the GNOME desktop"

Is this neutral? or true? --Anonymous

Quite true. However, if, instead of using "many" the word was "a majority", that would be rather more difficult to support seeing that KDE also has a large following, and many people use KDE exclusively (or parts of both GNOME and KDE at the same time). --Robert Merkel


Eye candy

Has anyone got a really good screenshot for this article? One with nice looking fonts (not weird cursive ones), a good desktop wallpaper and some great looking apps running -- something clean and business-like, but attractive. The one I got the GNOME site is ok, but I'm sure there are better. --Motor 12:23, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm... apparently not. So, does anyone have views on the 2.6 screenshots? Are any of those an improvement on the current English language one? --Motor 23:11, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It does need a new screenshot, but in the meantime, how about we at least label the existing screenshot with the date and/or version? The latest version of Gnome is 2.8, and that looks to me like 2.2 or so. The date says Friday 31 January -- the last 31-Jan on a Friday was 31 January 2003, or over 18 months ago. Gnome is currently doing releases every 6 months, so this is quite a bit out of date.
It's not horrible to have a screenshot of an older version of Gnome, but we should say it's an older version, so people don't get the wrong idea. --Anonymous
Agreed. If anyone reading can find a couple of good screen shots (one English, clean and attractive looking; and one in an obviously foreign language one) that'd be great. --Motor 10:32, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What we could call an eye candy si definetly KDE .I had the good intention to use Gnome some weeks ago so i installed it [Gnome 2.10] and again I was disapointed. It was nothing worth to speak of .I am not against it but ...It can never reach KDE as an eye candy. --Anonymous stupid guy

Xscreensaver's Gnome-ness

Removed Xscreensaver because it isn't part of the architecture. It's an application... and not a GNOME one. --Motor 11:15, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. The manual says: "The screensaver application for the GNOME Desktop is XScreenSaver". If by "not a GNOME one" you mean it wasn't written by or for Gnome, then we should take GStreamer out, too -- it was designed to be a general-purpose multimedia framework, and the 'G' does *not* stand for Gnome, IIRC. (I would be OK with moving it to the "applications" section. I think it's more Architecture than Applications, but I think it's more important that it gets credit.) --Anonymous
I think you're blurring the line (and I admit it already is pretty blurry) between apps and archicture too much. XScreensaver isn't even nominally a GNOME app (as far as I'm aware) -- it's just one that's thrown in there to do a job some people think is needed. GStreamer isn't an app it's a set of libraries that provide media services to the desktop. Adding XScreensaver (even to the apps sections) seems a bit like adding emacs to me. --Motor 10:32, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


As a follow-up: Does Metacity belong in the arch section? I suppose it serves an essential purpose. --Motor 11:22, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sure, why not? It's one of the things upon which Gnome is built. (It runs its own process, but GConf does, too. Neither is an "application", to people using Gnome.)
While we're at it, how about adding Mozilla/Gecko to the Architecture list, since Epiphany (the default browser) uses it? And maybe even freedesktop.org? --Anonymous
I agree. Do you want to do it? BTW: you might want to sign in an get a username if you're going to be editing. It'll also let you sign and date your talk posts by using four tilde (~) characters in a row. Cheers. --Motor 10:32, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Split

Should the split in Gnome be mentioned? I saw something about it on slashdot. -- Watsonladd

The new project is goneME. --Anonymous
It was mentioned... but the project went nowhere and is dead as far as I'm aware. So I removed it. --Motor 00:12, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


HIG

"Since version 2.0 (since 2002) GNOME development and design follows a Human-Interface-Guidline (HIG), which is actively supported by Sun Microsystems. The release cycle for major updates takes about 6 months. GNOME tries to satisfy users who expect an intuitive interface and also demand flexibilty."

I've put the introduction of the HIG info into the version table rather than the article text. The six month cycle is already mentioned under Versions, and the last sentence seems a bit redundant. --Motor 16:15, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Spelling - copied from my (Motor) talk page

Oh, and incidentally, the Wikipedia guidelines for American vs British English say to use whichever is either most predominant in Wikipedia, or what applies best to the article or what the article is written in, in order of ascending priority. Wikipedia is largely in American English, Gnome is an American project, and reading through the article, the only thing that I can find that is British English and not American, is precisely the word we are quarrelling over. So I think I can safely say it should be 'organization', not 'organisation'. But I don't want a revert war, so I'm gonna drop it until I hear from you. 'Course, we could always go to arbitration... --maru 15:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First of all... I notice you have now modified your original bold and incorrect assertion that "American English" is the standard on Wikipedia. Second... GNOME is not largely an American project, that is simply incorrect. It is an international project. The fact that a number of contributors are American does not to justify unnecessary spelling edits. Third, I wrote most of the article, and I can assure that it is "British" English with a few exceptions where other people written something and I didn't "correct" it (naturally), or where I simply preferred the "American" spelling when writing it. Fourth, when I edit I try to fit in with the style of a pre-existing article. I would also revert the edits of anyone who started converting an "American" spelling article into a "British" spelling one while adding nothing of substance. I do not edit the writing of others to fit my style or spelling, and I have no intention of allowing you to start changing the spelling of an article just to suit your personal preferences -- and I think you'll find that any arbitration will agree with me on this since it is the only workable policy in articles that are not *definitely* British or American or anything else. Certainly considering that your contributions to the article are minimal. Addition: In fact, a quick check of the page history shows no contributions whatsoever -- apart from the spelling revert and its snide edit summary (along with a worse violation of wikipedia guidelines on the KDE article). Your only contributions (to the GNOME/KDE articles) appear to be posting to the talk pages of both the KDE and GNOME articles attempting to get some kind of GNOME vs KDE thing going, for whatever reason. However, arbitration is not something I've had to do before, so it might be interesting. I won't initiate it though, because as I said, it's a waste of someone's time and energy (esp. in a case like this). Still, if you absolutely insist on forcing the issue in the face of all common sense and considering your behaviour so far... go ahead.
On the other hand, if you decide you would rather do something constructive to the GNOME article, I made a few suggestions on the talk page. I would welcome the help, since (as I said) I wrote most of the article and have felt for a long time that it needs more detail and more voices in order to become a better article. You can see evidence of this in the talk page. --Motor 16:56, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)


Future developments

I've included a first draft of a future developments section. I originally wrote a bit about some of the options for high-level languages... and then removed it because it's a very complex issue and I wasn't sure it was all that relevant, plus it's extremely difficult to avoid bias without long digressions into subjects that have nothing to do with GNOME. I'll include an early version here. It was originally meant to follow on from: "This would increase the minimum specification of machine able to run the latest GNOME desktop."

In addition there are intellectual property issues surrounding C# and Java. Using C# would require the inclusion of Mono — a controversial project which, although it uses a free software license, is viewed with suspicion by some in the free softare community because of its origins as a reimplementation of Microsoft's .NET languages and frameworks. The use of Java has similar concerns. Python, while it is free software, lacks the industry support of either C# and Java.

Suggestions welcome. --Motor 17:01, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

A question: I understand the bit about IP and licensing issues, but why exactly does using a higher level language create such technical problems? I mean, Gnome will still be compiled into bytecode for most distributions and users, (save source-based distros like Gentoo) and I think Gnome programs adhere to standards for intercommunication so that wouldn't be a problem... As far as I can tell, switching to a higher language simply means more system requirements for rolling your own Gnome, which for, I do not hesitate to say, the vast majority of users is irrelevant. So does it merit so much space? --maru 22:51, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Using either Python, C# or Java for GNOME applications needs a virtual machine to be present on the end-users computer (and the class libraries)... which is fine if you choose to run a GNOME app written in one of those languages and install the stuff yourself. The discussion is really over whether GNOME should "bless" one virtual machine (and its associated libraries) as official, install it with GNOME and use it within the desktop itself. That really would increase the minimum requirements for a machine to run the base GNOME desktop (mem, CPU and disk space). As for how much space... the possiblity of moving to using an HLL within GNOME is a big discussion point at the moment and will have a large impact on GNOME in future. So IMO it does deserve to be in the future development section. --Motor 01:35, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
Hmm. I still fail to understand: aren't most programs provided compiled (with of course, source in addition to comply with the GPL; it is fairly rare I need to fire up GCC and Make for a new program- or so my experience goes. YMMV.)? I didn't think one needed an interpreter or virtual machine for compiled byte-code. --maru 01:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Take Java for example: You can sit at a workstation running Linux on an athlon-based PC and "compile" a Java ".jar" file that will then run on a Solaris workstation with a SPARC microprocessor. It works (at least in theory) because when you "compile" your Java app, you convert the source code into a bytecode for an imaginary computer architecture called a JVM, rather than actual instructions for the specific microprocessor you are running (and a set of class libraries to cover up the differences between platforms). See Just-in-time compilation for a description of the process. Essentially, the code isn't converted into actual specific instructions for the microprocessor in your computer until you run it by starting a JVM and pointing it at the .jar file. So an end-user is actually compiling the bytecode into a program that runs on their machine... they just don't see that step. The whole interpreter/compilation thing gets a little more complicated when you bring in gcj... but essentially, to run Java apps you need a JVM.
The process is basically the same for C# (and any Microsoft .Net language) and Python. It gets still more complicated when you realise that the language isn't necessarily restricted to one VM. For example IKVM can convert Java bytecode to .Net code, which is then run on the Mono VM. See also IronPython or Jython. --Motor 09:09, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
Ah- I understand now. --maru 19:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Free/Non-free

I'm not too happy about just throwing around words like free and non-free. It's too confusing for casual readers (something anyone who ever mentions free software to others will know all about). Has anyone got a more descriptive and less confusing way of putting it? One more thing was it just members of the GNU project who got the ideas for Harmony/GNOME? Motor 20:14, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Introduction

Does that intro cover the basics? The idea is to give anyone starting reading from scratch a rough understanding of what the GNOME project is. Any suggestions welcome. Motor 19:23, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

GNOME 2.12

In anticipation of the release, can anyone provide a (3/4 lines max) summary of the changes for inclusion in the table sometime in September. My suggestion:

ClearLooks theme; nautilus improvements; improvements in cut/paste between applications and freedeskop.org integration. Adds: Evince PDF viewer; menu editor; keyring manager and admin tools. Based on GTK 2.8 with Cairo support;

- Motor (talk) 15:08:34, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

Screenshots... part #134243

With the imminent release of GNOME 2.12 new screenshots are way, way overdue. Unfortunately, I'm on a 56k modem and searching through new candidates is *painful*. Anyway, I'd like to open a discussion for potential replacements (I've tried before, but I think it's worth another go):

IMO, we need two (possibly three) screenshots for this article... no more.

  1. A shot of the default theme (ClearLooks for 2.12) with various interesting apps open: browser, image app, word processor... all arranged artfully. This is for the tasteful "opening" shot of the article.
  2. A shot with an interesting looking language script (Benghali used currently) demonstrating the important internationalisation features.
  3. (debatable) A shot that has been heavily customised to show off various features.

Screenshots need to be distro/OS neutral (no gratuitous mentions of Fedora/Ubuntu/Debia/JDS etc) and tasteful. If anyone finds any interesting candidates can you include an external link below (don't upload them to wikipedia just as a candidate for this article). It's probably worth starting by browsing here the art.gnome.org forums. They have a screenshots thread full of potential candidates -- though obviously it's better to start at the end of thread since they are newer. Anyone up for it? - Motor (talk) 12:54:49, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

  • Example shot to demonstrate how to add candidates
  • [2] Googled and found this one. It shows the internationalisation features.
It's a start, but it doesn't really show much. Ideally it'd be nice to see a shot of someone working in a non-English script... word processing, for example. This shot is of English webpages. - Motor (talk) 01:50:43, 2005-09-08 (UTC)
Thanks. I've uploaded it and used it as the infobox image. I kept the old one for the time being and moved it to later in the article. - Motor (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Licensing

I corrected a couple of factual errors in the licensing of KDE and GNOME. LGPL in fact does not allow "any license", as it restricts reverse engineering (see section 6 of the LGPL). Also, the GPL does not impose restrictions on the KDE libs and apps, as some are under licences allowed by the QPL, and most are already GPL compatible. The most important consequence is that you need to buy a license to develop proprietary software with Qt, hence I added it. Also, Qt was already available under the QPL before being GPL'd, so I try to make that more clear. -- Carloswoelz 15:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the LGPL issue. I've replaced "any" with "almost any" and moved the more detailed explanation into an endnote to avoid filling up the copy with too much finnicky detail. I'd like to link directly to the LGPL clause in the endnote... so if anyone can supply a direct link that'd be great. I re-added the fact that it imposes restrictions on KDE and its apps because... well... it does. Even if the current choice of licences by KDE code causes no problems, it still restricts the choice of licence. I'd prefer to avoid too much detail here because this is a GNOME article. The restrictions on licensing in KDE are, in a large part, responsible for the creation of GNOME and a big reason why the desktops are still apart... but the details of what you can and can't do with KDE should be on that article. I also rewrote the "derivative works" bit to be simpler because I'd like to avoid as much legal talk as possible. Although I suppose that might also be worth endnoting too. - Motor (talk) 16:31:58, 2005-09-08 (UTC)
I do not agree with the "almost any license" classification. In fact, most proprietary licenses (EULAs) include reverse engineering restriction clauses. So I agree with "almost any open source license" but not with "almost any license". Proprietary developers should be aware that they have to allow reverse engineering if they use LGPL libs (like GTK), and most proprietary licenses do not allow that. See for instance the acrobat reader license: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/acrreula.html -- Carloswoelz 17:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
"Almost any open source license" would be seriously misleading. As for proprietary developers needing to be aware of the reverse engineering clause -- I agree completely. However, that's not the function of this article, and any proprietary developer making legal decisions from reading the copy here (and they'd have to ignore the endnote too) is, well, nuts. It's only supposed to give people an overview of the situation, which is why/how GNOME came about and a quick insight into why the GNOME/KDE split still exists. The phrase "almost any" along with a suitable endnote mentioning the reverse engineering clause and linking to it (and feel free to add that) is sufficient in my opinion. - Motor (talk) 17:53:16, 2005-09-08 (UTC)
"Almost any license" is still factually wrong, and has to be changed. Proprietary licenses are still the majority of the licenses out there, and they usually restrict reverse-engineering.
"Usually restrict reverse-engineering"... is just a handwaving assertion. The article is not factually wrong, or even misleading -- it makes it quite clear that you may use any license providing it does not restrict reverse engineering. Proprietary licenses are not ruled out... only licenses that restrict reverse engineering. This version simply puts the detail in an endnote to avoid clogging up an already complicated section. The farthest I would go is to say "any license that does not restrict reverse engineering (footnote)", but even that is ugly and unneccessarily complicated. - Motor (talk) 18:24:36, 2005-09-08 (UTC)
It is not only "handwaving assertion" as I provided eveidence for one license.
You have baffled me here. You made a handwaving assertion (and still do) that they "usually restrict reverse-engeering. - Motor (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
So let's try something a bit more cientific. Googling for eula, the first five licences I found have this restriction: skype, macromedia, microsoft, nero, guild wars, blizzard and more. in fact, I did not found *one* that did not restrict reverse engeneering. Also, there is an additional restriction: licences which restrict modifications in the binary, which the pretty much all do.
So "almost any license" is incorrect, as the reverse engeneering restriction seems pretty standard on proprietary licenses. -- Carloswoelz 15:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I must have missed the part where a) googling is scientific b) proprietary licenses with anti-reverse-engineering clause are in the majority c) the article as it stood was wrong. Of all the licenses that exists or can be written (including those used internally inside companies... of which there are huge numbers), the only ones prohibited by the LGPL are those with anti-reverse-engineering clauses. "Almost all" (with a suitable footnote) is an accurate and simple summary of that -- let's not forget, this is not the LGPL article. For what it's worth, the wording as it now stands falls short of being too long and wordy... so I'm going to leave it for the time being.- Motor (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I am aware of the fact the googling is not scientific. But it is the best I can produce, and it is still evidence, even if it is a small sample, it is still a sample. I agree that from all the licenses that can be written, theoretically, the ones that restrict reverse engineering are the minority. But in practice, at least a large part of the proprietary licenses seem to restrict it. But since you are going to leave this way, I am happy :) -- Carloswoelz 02:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Also, you changed the introduction of the article for worse (IMHO). While it is true that "In September 2000, after GNOME had become usable and was gaining popularity, Trolltech made the GNU/Linux version of the Qt libraries available under three licenses: the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL), the Q Public License (QPL) and a commercial license.", you give the wrong impression that: 1) Trolltech did not use a Open Source license before and 2) that this a sudden even caused by competitive GNOME pressure. My wording was better, I don't know why you changed it: "In September 2000, after GNOME had become usable and was gaining popularity, Trolltech made the GNU/Linux version of the Qt libraries available under the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL), in addition to the the QPL and the commercial license, removing most of the objections that had fuelled years of licensing debates." This shows a bit better that the road to GPL in Qt's case was a process, not an event. What about this compromise: "In September 2000, Trolltech made the GNU/Linux version of the Qt libraries available under the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL), removing most of the objections that had fuelled years of licensing debates. Qt was already available in the QPL since November 18 1998. However, GNOME was already usable at the time, and gaining popularity." See http://www.trolltech.com/newsroom/announcements/00000074.html for more background information.
I changed it to attempt to make it clear that Trolltech was adding another license to their already multi-licensed toolkit. I don't think it gave the wrong impression particularly. I've made another alteration to make the origin section read chronologically now (actually, the origin section is now more like it was before someone else edited a while back (but that's by the by). Although I have to say, I've never liked the assertion that it was done because GNOME was becoming more popular because it's impossible to prove (even though I'm pretty certain there was a link). - Motor (talk) 18:48:41, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

KDE restrictions

Two things:

  • I'm content to leave this as it is because the old version came across as a bit redundant. I actually prefer the shorter version.
Thanks. I think the wording is better now, as the KDE framework *is* included in the sentence, as it is also a group of "applications and libraries using the KDE/Qt framework". No need to point to it in particular, because they are planning to write a free software desktop anyway. -- Carloswoelz 15:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Your edit summary: "Adding restrictions to the KDE framework is just nonsense, as it is restricted to free software by choice in the first place,", is incorrect (choosing to abide by restrictions does not suddently make them "not restrictions") and unneccessarily combative.
I don't agree, see KDE talk. And sorry about being combative (again). I will restrain myself in the future. Just for the record, you called my arguments "bizarre", which is even more combative. -- Carloswoelz 15:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me... I wrote nothing of the sort. I did not appreciate you dragging me into your argument there and making an unjustified accusation. The edits to which you are referring have nothing to do with me. The first I knew about them is you mentioning them now, since I do not watch the KDE page. But for what it's worth... your argument is wrong. Nothing you say in the KDE talk page contradicts my point (made in here... as, again, the KDE article edits are nothing to do with me) that choosing to obey restrictions suddenly makes them not restrictions. At the very least it is certainly not nonsense, merely (as I said myself) a bit redundant. But anyway, this is irrelevant now. - Motor (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
If it clears anything thing up: This is the IP range from which I edit. I don't have accounts with other ISPs, nor do I edit via proxies, nor do I edit not logged in (except this time, obviously). I use Wannadoo Anytime, a UK ISP service for 56k modems which uses a dynamic IP... but nothing in the range of the IP which made those edits. I have approached your editing this article in the spirit of constructive collaboration... and I believe the origin section in particular is a far clearer and more informative now than it was. I would appreciate you taking back your statement. 195.92.168.165 19:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC) (Motor, posting logged out)
Sorry again. If it wasn't you, then I responded to the wrong person. My only interest is to make the articles more accurate, and in my opinion, this is your objective too. It was really nice interacting with you, much better then the other guy at the KDE page. If you want to remove this whole kind of personal discussion from the talk page, please feel free to do so. - Carloswoelz 01:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Architecture

The architecture sections blows. I can say that without violating any Wikipedia rules about being pleasant because I wrote it :) When I say "wrote it" I mean that I started listing a bunch of different GNOME technologies and added a short explanation for each one. It's awful, and it's sat there like a canker sore for ages. I'd like to see it improved into a real explanation of GNOME architecture: say, how GTK/GLIB provide the base; a simple description of GObjects; how Bonobo and DBUS fit in; file manager, window manager, panels etc etc. Best of all, I'd like to find an image that shows a dependency tree for GNOME 2.12 (earlier would be ok, but not too old obviously). Can anyone help? - Motor (talk) 12:30:43, 2005-09-09 (UTC)

Software infobox

I mentioned this on the OpenOffice.org talk page... but the revised infobox is too complicated and doesn't appear to solve any real problem. It also displays a message to newbies editing the page to "do not edit the page". I really can't see the point of it, and I'm seriously considering reverting it from the OpenOffice.org article too. That's why I think we should stick with the original... it does the job. - Motor (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Spelling

There is no edit war here... you'd have to hang around on Wikipedia articles on abortion, Michael Moore, George W. Bush or Israel to see what a real edit war is like. This is simply an occasional wikipedia newbie who reads as far as the contents box and then doesn't bother to check a dictionary before editing. This used to happen with "ageing" when the article was shorter and the word was near the top. - Motor (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


g-nome/guh-gnome

What's the best way... I think there's a standard way of expressing pronunciation on Wikipedia -- anyone want to look it up before I get around to it? I've reverted it back to "guh" for the moment because even though it's a bit ugly it does the job, whereas g-nome doesn't. - Motor (talk)

I visited the page to find that out and it wasn't here! I went and found this:

GNOME stands for "GNU Network Object Model Environment". GNU stands for "GNU's Not Unix", and has always been officially pronounced "guh-NEW" to minimize confusion. Since GNU is GNOME's first name, GNOME is officially pronounced "guh-NOME".

However, many people pronounce GNOME as just "NOME" (like those short people from legend), nobody will hurt you if you find this pronunciation easier.

I suggest text to this effect be added to the page.

http://library.n0i.net/linux-unix/applications/x/gnome/faq/x104.html David

For the longest time I was pronouncing it "jee-nome" (like genome) until I realized that it was actually the same word as those little mythical creatures; so then I pronounced it "nome" (gnome), and then I finally ran across this page and now I have to change yet again! <g> I still find it hard not to slip back into "jee-nome"... - dcljr (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversy/criticism topic?

GNOME should have a controversy/criticism topic like KDE, including a part about Linus Torvalds allegedly dissing it. --72.64.5.27 22:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Why? Having just had a look at the criticism section on the KDE page, it's awful. Who they hell cares about slashdot trolls posting "The K in KDE stands for Krap"? If there are specific criticisms of GNOME, then they should be dealt with and discussed in the section relevant to the criticism. A seperate criticism section is just a magnet for bullet-pointed idiocy. For example: the GNOME philosophy of removing features is controversial (not least with me, it irritates me enormously), but it can be addressed in the aims section... including both the criticism and the praise. As for what Linus Torvalds thinks -- well, if this were an article on kernel design, then I'd agree with including his opinion... otherwise, I don't see any justification for mentioning it. - Motor (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes. I think that it would be a good idea. - David Björklund (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that things like "The K in KDE stands for Krap" are idiotic, speed and complexity issues are more or less controversial, and as for looking like platform XYZ or not... However I think the licensing issues are valid. Personally it is the only thing I could imagine holding against KDE (as it prevents me writing software for it, the license costing much more than I ever sell software for). Karderio 06:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
The licensing issue for KDE is fair game for mentioning in the KDE article, but... IMO... not in a criticisms controversy section. It's possible that the licensing issue is important enough to justify its own section, I don't know I'll leave the editors of that article to decide. There are any number of criticisms you can make of projects like KDE or GNOME -- but if they are important, they should be integrated into the article copy itself in the relevant section. A specific controversy/criticism section is not the way to go... not only does it read better when you thread any discussion of controversy and criticism into the article itself, but it also avoids creating a magnet for crap. The originator of this thread wrote "like KDE" [the article] -- IMO, the KDE article should be more like the GNOME one in this regard. - Motor (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
For the record: I disbanded the criticism section into usability and licensing, the only topics worth discussing in the former section. And I used a more neutral point of view on these topics. Karderio, just for curiosity, what software do you sell? Carloswoelz 21:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
A criticism section would be a bad idea. Criticism should be woven into the article. If there are criticisms about the, say, the simplicity of the printer dialogue buttons, I expect to find about them when I read the section about dialogues or buttons or simplicity/complexity or something like that. I don't want to have to check the criticism section after I read anything else. That's the first problem: It's a bad way to structure the information. The second problem is related to Wikipedia's development model: A criticism section creates an easy place for people who have not read the article to put stuff they don't like about GNOME, this leads to people adding stuff that contradicts other parts of the article. Gronky 15:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


Looking at this from a non-personal view (I know a lot of you have your preferences), I think organizing common complaints and famous complaints (in the case of Linus) would be a good idea. An encyclopedia article should present objective and relevant facts. For example, I think Linus' take on Gnome is relevant and interesting (and obviously a fact). As the creator of Linux, he commands a position that makes anything relevant he says potentially encyclopedic IMO. -a non-linux user, for the most part 70.93.249.46

Nothing said so far in this thread suggests (or even hints) that objective and relevants facts should be excluded -- quite the opposite in fact, if you read back over it. I just refuse to have a separate criticism section when issues can, and should, be addressed within the appropriate part of this article. Also, exactly what was objective about Torvalds' GNOME rant is lost on me (even though I agree with parts of it personally).
As the creator of Linux -- you left off "Kernel" from the end of that. 1. Torvalds is the big cheese when it comes to what goes into the Linux kernel, not what makes up a Linux distro. 2. GNOME is not a "Linux" desktop, it runs across a number of systems. 3. I repeat my earlier point -- if this was an article about kernel design then his opinion would certainly be relevant, but his opinions of GNOME's design choices are no more relevant to this article than yours and mine. - Motor (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
But Jacques Chirac and Silvio Berlusconi are not (Finnish) chefs, still their opinions are mentioned in Cuisine of Finland#Critique. You can't expect good criticism to come from inside the project, can you? Do you think critique from RMS or Bill Gates would be sufficient? Yet, Linus Torvalds stated his critique was not intended to be public, so it was not written in an objective manner. Which should be mentioned, I think. --Easyas12c 14:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Chirac/Berlusconi/Finnish cuisine -- so what? Just because some other article has poor judgement about what does and does not belong in an encyclopedia article has no bearing on this argument. You can't expect good criticism to come from inside the project, can you? -- actually yes, you can since not everyone in the GNOME project agrees with each other... but that's nothing to do with it. A quick read back over this thread will show that I've never expected anyone to rely purely on opinions from GNOME project contributors, rather people with some expertise and credibility in the relevant area. And "good criticism"? Are you really suggesting that Torvalds' remarks were good criticism? Good criticism requires the person to know what they are talking about -- and even though I am firmly on the side of not dumbing-down GNOME and sympathised with his point of view, his remarks were worthless as any kind of authoritative source.
I've said before... there is no problem with talking about the choices made by the GNOME project, good and bad. However, and I'm repeating myself here, Linus Torvalds is not a user interface designer and has no expertise in the area (and claims none). He was having a whinge on a mailing list. This is an encylopedia article, it's not a review of GNOME, nor is it a collection of quotes about what various Open Source celebrities think of it. It's supposed to be a collection of solid, verifiable facts collected from authoritative sources. - Motor (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I agree. These comments of Torvalds are not very important, but just over emphasised by GNOME haters. They may be added to software wars article. A criticism section should still be created with comments from UI specialised revewers. This should include both positive and negative reviews. --Easyas12c 20:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
... but we don't need a special criticism section just to address the issue of usability and the choices made by GNOME in the name of it. It's bad and lazy article writing, IMO, particularly on Wikipedia (for the reasons I've gone over before). - Motor (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Opinion of Linux inventor must be added, otherwise that is hiding of relevant information.

A small note on KDE and GNOME being friends would be helpful

A small note on

  • KDE and GNOME being friends
  • how they have to cooperate to become better (think ISV support, freedesktop.org, better drivers, ...)
  • how, exactly because they are differents, they are able to attract different types of users from Windows (and macos x, but this is less important), which is the real concurrent
  • how the morons who tends to flame the other desktop environment cause a lot of harm to the very desktop they think they defend, since nobody profits on propaganda on the long term, and the only result of the flaming is that in 100% of the cases, somebody "on the other side" will flame back

Such a paragraph would be very helpful if we want that the two articles not be regulary vandalized by proud idiots (and that's the most polite term I found)

The posts in defense of GNOME by Aaraon Seigo during the infamous and stupid Linus's flaming can be use as a starting point for the redaction of this important paragraph.

Cross-posted to Talk:KDE

I propose to continue the discussion/redaction here


Excellent idea. there are many many parts of KDE and GNOME that are common to both desktops.
84.102.180.68 11:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Josh1024
There's already a freedesktop section in this article. As for the other points:
  • "KDE and GNOME being friends"? KDE is only mentioned in this article in relation to the origin of GNOME and a quick mention in the freedesktop section (along with XFCE) about how fd.o encourages cooperation between different desktop environments. That's more than enough IMO, because this is an article about GNOME not KDE.
  • How GNOME/KDE are different? What have the features of KDE got to do with this article? If someone wants to read about KDE, there's an article already. This issue came up once before and my attitude remains the same: this isn't a review of GNOME, nor is it a guide to help users decide which one (Windows/Mac/GNOME/KDE?XFCE) they want to use. If someone wants to start a "Comparison of desktop environments" article, that's up to them, but I'm not interested in having something like that within this article as I don't see how it would improve it.
  • "How the morons tend to flame other desktop environments" ... who cares? How would documenting the activites of a few loud mouthed idiots improve this article?
  • As for this article being regularly vandalised... it's not... at least no more than any other article on wikipedia.

- Motor (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


That said, this may be not such a neat idea, I tend to agree more with Motor. Parts of KDE and GNOME that are common might be better explained in the fd.o articles etc. It should however be clear that KDE and GNOME mutually cooperate and are not competiters.

84.102.180.68 15:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Josh1024

I thought it was reasonably clear in the Freedesktop section -- pointing out that fd.o encourages cooperation as well as competition. It just doesn't refer to GNOME vs KDE... and it doesn't resort to being too corny. If anyone has a better way of wording it without sounding twee... and without limiting it to just GNOME and KDE... go ahead and suggest it. - Motor (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it is reasonably clear in the Freedesktop section, when I say "might be better explained in the fd.o" I mean it might be better to explain this in that section rather than a new paragraph. I am wondering if "might be better" is more of a UK expression... ? :) 84.102.180.68 13:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC) Josh1024

Planned future releases

As I said in the edit summary, I don't believe we need a table with a single abbreviated entry for this. We have a future developments section already, and it needs expanding. A paragraph or two documenting what will be in the next version of GNOME, or further down the line would be welcome there --- and it will be a lot more informative too - Motor (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The following comment included under the future plans is wildly speculative, highly unlikely and should be removed: "The use of the Mozilla project's XUL on the GNOME desktop".

The section is for listing developments... whether or not they are likely to be included in GNOME. "Some are considered purely experimental concepts, or for testing ideas that will one day migrate into stable GNOME applications; others are code that is being polished for direct inclusion." If the project is dead, then it should be removed... but not just because it is a bit unlikely to end up in an official GNOME release. I've added a source from about 2 years ago, but if you can provide a source showing that the idea is long abandoned and no work is happening on it, then we can remove it. - Motor (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

LGPL licensing issues explanation

could someone draft some kind of explanation of how "the text in Section 6 of the LGPL v2.1 prohibits linking to software with a license that restricts reverse-engineering and modification of the work for the customer's own use." as this could be very valuable to those users who don't want to have to trudge through licenses and who might be instantly put off the very idea of GTK because of this.

If someone wants to explain the details of the LGPL then they can do it on the LGPL article where it belongs. - Motor (talk) 09:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


"GNOME Applications"

All sorts of things were in here which aren't suitable. The Gaim maintainers in particular make it quite clear that they don't people to think of Gaim as part of the GNOME project. I've removed things which aren't part of GNOME itself at the current time, and I'm going to do the same for the list article. Chris Cunningham 11:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I personally take no particular position on what makes a GNOME app, but I've reverted the recent removals. It needs discussion on the talk page before any of them are removed. For example, as far as I'm aware, abiword is uses GNOME technology even it can also work as a version that runs on Windows, or with just GTK available. - Motor (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
"Uses GNOME technology" is bogus. Firefox uses GNOME technology; it doesn't belong in this list either. I'm re-reverting this until someone comes up with a good reason why *not* to change it; "this hasn't been discussed" is not a good reason. GNOME apps are things which ship with GNOME and are in GNOME's CVS. They follow the GNOME release cycle and are in the GNOME release notes. GTK applications which happen to tightly tie into GNOME still aren't part of the platform. Chris Cunningham 14:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
It's only a GNOME application if it's in GNOME CVS and shipped with GNOME, and listed in the release notes? Thanks... now at least I'm sure why your edits need reverting. BTW: Abiword is also part of GNOME office. - Motor (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you have counter-proof? As far as I was aware GNOME Office was nothing more than a term used for Abi and Gnumeric in an attempt to sound as cool as OpenOffice. If there's reason to believe that the GNOME Foundation consider it to be part of the platform, go right ahead and re-add it. Until then I'll keep removing it while I'm correcting the quite explicitly disavowed claim that Gaim is a "GNOME application". Chris Cunningham 15:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Abiword explicity integrated with GNOME and uses GNOME technologies such as Bobobo (when it is compiled with those options) -- for a start. Your claim that an app is only a GNOME application if it is in GNOME CVS and shipped with GNOME is bizarre and completely unreasonable (why don't you try emailing Adobe and insisting that Photoshop isn't a Windows application because it's not shipped by Microsoft... see how far you get) -- and if that's your reason for removing most of the entries, then... yes... I am quite sure I'm doing the right thing by returning the article to its original state and requesting that you provide more justification. As I've already pointed out, I'm am quite willing to open a discussion on the topic of exactly what is and is not a GNOME application, and even discuss each and every entry... but I will not allow you to set a completely unreasonable condition, and then make a major edit... without considerable discussion. "Being bold", as you try to defend yourself with on the other talk page, is not about hammering away at the article until you get your way. Being bold involves editing and seeing what happens, and then resolving conflicts by discussion. Which is what I am trying to do. - Motor (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm resolving the deadlock by clarifying exactly what I mean by "GNOME application". The confusion here is that GNOME is both the name of the desktop and of the project. I am taking "GNOME app" to mean "Microsoft app" and you are taking it to mean "Windows app". The general consensus appears to lie with me, seeing as there are apps out there such as Gaim which explicitly dissociate themselves with the term "GNOME app" even though they use GNOME technologies. And as you should be well aware, "editing and seeing what happens" results in an immediate revert 95% of the time. Now that you appear to be prepared to actually justify the inclusion of random GTK apps, can you explain why you're just reverting the list each time instead of pushing forward and adding everything from VMWare to Firefox to the list? Chris Cunningham 17:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
You aren't resolving any deadlock. You are simply redefining what the list means so that it suits you -- this isn't acceptable. Quite how you think the consensus is with you is a bit mysterious, since a) no-one else has yet commented on this yet (and this is why I keep reverting it back to its original form until there are more opinions) b) Defining GNOME apps as only those in GNOME CVS remains totally bizarre and unreasonably restrictive.
I repeat (and repeat... and repeat): If you want discuss and justify individual entries, that is fine (you apparently don't want this), but I will not let you simply remove a lot of apps under your own personal definition of "GNOME App". For example: provide a link showing your claim that GAIM is explicity not a GNOME app and I will happily remove it myself. Just in case it hasn't sunk in yet, I have no investment in whether these applications are included or not... I didn't add many of them... I am simply preventing you from making a change that you have barely justified. - Motor (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Got your evidence right here

Gaim not being part of the GNOME project: (this is the top Google hit; if you need more you can find it yourself, I'm not providing citations for things which *shouldn't* be in the article)

http://mail.gnome.org/archives/membership-committee/2005-January/msg00004.html

Last sentence: "Although Gaim isn't part of the GNOME project, it is undeniably a crucial part of most GNOME users' desktops." This makes a clear distinction between "applications GNOME users have" and "GNOME applications"

For a KDE-related article which explores the concept of including apps in the project versus treating all apps written with the same toolkit as platform apps:

http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2005/12/selecting-applications-for-kde4.html

I'm well aware that removing any information from any Wikipedia article is heresy to some and the process is somewhat akin to pulling teeth, but the ball is now in your court. Chris Cunningham 01:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if you read the replies on the talk page before posting again, and vertainly before continuing a tedious edit war. Or even read other people's user contributions before making statements abouts viewing it as heresy to remove information. A little investigation goes a long way.
As for these links... exactly what do you think they prove, other than the fact that you haven't actually made any effort to understand the issue here at all? Gaim not being part of the GNOME project: (this is the top Google hit; if you need more you can find it yourself, I'm not providing citations for things which *shouldn't* be in the article) -- how about providing something relevant that actually backs up your bizarre claim that to be a "GNOME application" it must be in GNOME CVS and part of the GNOME release process? It is the core of this. As I've already made clear a couple of times already, I don't care whether it is part of the GNOME project or not. It's simply not an issue as far as I'm concerned. The issue is whether it is built on GNOME technology. See later, where I try to explain it again.
Last sentence: "Although Gaim isn't part of the GNOME project, it is undeniably a crucial part of most GNOME users' desktops." This makes a clear distinction between "applications GNOME users have" and "GNOME applications" It does not. You claim that an application is not a GNOME application unless it is actually part of the GNOME project -- this is nonsense and not a definition that people use. It is merely your redefinition. The link does not back this up at all. It merely says that Gaim isn't developed within GNOME -- which is not something I disagree with, nor did I ask you to prove it since it is completely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Equally, the KDE link is just as bafflingly irrelevant. It makes no argument beyond discussing what applications the KDE project chooses to bundle with its releases. It certainly does not back up your claim that by saying that an application isn't a "KDE application" unless it's part of the KDE project.
I'm going to layout, as clearly as I possibly can, the problems with your edit and try once more to reason with you. However, if you make another attempt to force your changes on the article without proper justificaton, I will simply revert them... yet again... back to the version before you made your first edit to this article.
You are defining a "GNOME application" as one developed within the GNOME Project. This is nonsense. No-one uses this terminology except for you. The idea that Evolution (for example) was not a GNOME application until it was put into GNOME CVS and made part of the GNOME release schedule is so ludicrous that it is hard to believe that anyone would actually try to argue it -- certainly none of the links you threw onto this talk page do anything of the kind. No-one has had a problem with a GNOME application being one that targets and depends on GNOME technology -- just the same as a Windows application targets and depends on Windows technology. Arguments about the article and "GNOME project" vs "GNOME desktop" just don't cut it. List of GNOME applications is clearly a "list of GNOME applications", in the accepted sense of the word and you are trying to make the same changes there. So... as far as I'm concerned you are not removing applications based on this self-serving redefinition, and if you do I will revert your changes (on this article and on [[List of GNOME applications)... again.
If you have a authoritative source to show that an app listed does not use or target GNOME technology, then provide it and you can remove it. The example I gave earlier stands: Find an authoritative link to show that Gaim does not target GNOME technology, and you can remove it from both lists. This isn't a personal challenge either... I'm not saying that Gaim does depend on GNOME technology -- I'm saying that you must back up your changes with proof.


Again, I want to make it quite clear that I have no emotional investment in this section of the article. I'm not defending my own additions to the section (I can't remember making any)... merely ensuring that one person does not suddenly arrive, decide that "GNOME application" means something completely different to the accepted use of the term, and start chopping at the article and hammering away reverting and firing off irrelevant links in the hope that the other side will get tired of it. - Motor (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion copied from Talk:List of GNOME applications was: Bureaucracy

Be Bold, Revert, Discuss. Note that Discuss is the last thing on this list, not the first. "it has not been discussed" is not a reason to prevent edits on articles; discussion is for breaking deadlocks, not for signing committees. Chris Cunningham 15:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said on the GNOME page, being bold is not about edit warring. You made a major change, and I reverted it because you haven't provided a good enough reason. While you are reading up on Wikipedia ettiquette, you might also check up the guidelines on being reasonable and seeking consensus. - Motor (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I am being reasonable. I have provided justification for the change, and I'm not sitting about for an indeterminate amount of time waiting for a general consensus of my peers to suddenly materialise because one guy has an issue with change (you've even said you don't have an opinion on the matter, so this is bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake).
No you have not provided justification for the change. You have your own personal definition of "GNOME application" and want to remove a lot of items from the list -- and you are using an edit war to get your own way. As for not having an opinion on what a GNOME app is... that's not true. 1) I know you definition is bizarre, and as a consequence I intend to ensure that more opinions are heard before the change goes through.(oh and BTW: making sure that edits are sourced and justified properly is not bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, it happens to be a major part of making Wikipedia a reliable source of information) - Motor (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Opinions schopinions. On the other article I've provided a little direct evidence along with an information link which explains a little more about the distinction between a project app and one which merely uses the platform. If you want more opinions you can go out and find them, while I continue to tidy articles up to a higher standard of accuracy. Chris Cunningham 01:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, Talk:GNOME#"GNOME Applications". I can keep restating the same thing, just to have you ignore it if you like but it is rather counterproductive. I've already said multiple times that you can make a changes to the article if you provide some proof that they are correct. You haven't. You continue to redefine what "GNOME application" actually means (away from the accepted use of the term) and on the back of that you have removed a number of entries from the list. You have provided nothing to support your definition of what a GNONE app is... now if there is a widespread consensus among editors of these articles that your definition is correct, or you provide some convincing evidence... that's fine. But you haven't, and as yet, there isn't. - Motor (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"Accepted sense of the word"

There are two possible definitions for "GNOME Application":

1. A program which is part of the GNOME desktop project.
2. A program which uses GTK+ as its toolkit.

This doesn't appear to be in dispute. What *does* appear to be vigourously defended by one editor is that the correct definition is number 2.

I dispute this. A simple google for "not a gnome app" turns up 318 results naming applications such as Mozilla, Thunar, BMP and Gaim, which all use the GTK+ toolkit. So there's evidence which supports me. On the other hand, your evidence comes from the article itself, which had no discussion at all on the issue, no introductory text explaining the issue and a large list of apps contributed by random users. As with all lists, it would tend to grow by itself regardless of how accurate it was.

Based on the fact that I personally use "GNOME app" to refer only to things which are part of the GNOME project itself, and that at least 318 Google results for "not a gnome app" turn up people who appear to use the term the same way as me, I couldn't care less whether you want this signed off in triplicate by random Wikipedia contributors. If you want random GTK apps in this list, provide proof that this is the "accepted sense of the word" beyond the fact that they once made it unopposed into a worse version of the article. And stop reverting a change because of the mere fact that it's a change. Chris Cunningham 07:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

2. A program which uses GTK+ as its toolkit.
No... GNOME VFS, Bonobo, integration with the GNOME panels, in fact using the services and libraries provided by the GNOME project.
This integration is provided by the freedesktop standards these days; the toolkit being used is mostly irrelevant to how well integrated an app is into the desktop. Chris Cunningham 11:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
A GNOME application. A KDE application. A Windows application. A Mac OSX application. This is how people use the term. the fact that absolutely no-one else has tried to define it your way over time that this section has existed just shows how unusual your interpretation is. On the other hand, people have long argued about GTK app vs GNOME app -- which is a much more grey area. Personally, the fact that GNOME technologies have migrated into GTK just defines all GTK apps as GNOME apps...
Why have you been lying about not having an opinion one way or another, then? You just explicitly stated that you think all GTK apps are GNOME apps. You've been as disingenuous as you have been self-righteous. Chris Cunningham 11:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
but that is an arguable point (however I would not include an app on a list of GNOME apps just because it could target GTK -- Firefox, OO.org etc far too controversial. If it used GTK exclusively then... possibly. As I said, arguable). I already offered you the opportunity to indvidually remove items and justify their removal based on not using GNOME technology. Yet you continue to do wholesale removals based on a suprious definition of "GNOME application" that the GNOME project itself does not use.
On the other hand, your evidence comes from the article itself, which had no discussion at all on the issue, no introductory text explaining the issue and a large list of apps contributed by random users. As with all lists, it would tend to grow by itself regardless of how accurate it was.
My evidence comes from the fact that the GNOME project itself does not use the term "GNOME Applications" to refer only to those applications which are part of the GNOME project. How much more authoritative would you like it to be? If you can find GNOME documentation that does so... provide the link.
How about you provide counter-proof? You've no more of an inherent authority to say which is correct than I have, and yet you're not providing anything new to aid your cause. Chris Cunningham 11:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, you completely the ignore the example I gave of "Evolution" -- an application that was not part of the GNOME CVS, and was not released with GNOME... and yet was a GNOME application since it relied on it heavily. It was refered to as such by its authors, and by articles ever written about it... and by the GNOME project. By your definition, it could not have been listed of List of GNOME applications. You completely ignore the fact that the links you supplied do not in any way back up your case (were you hoping that I wouldn't bother to read them and just give up, because it seems that way?). You talk about this article, and yet you make the same changes to List of GNOME applications -- which, as I said, is a list of applications targetted at the GNOME desktop in the convential sense of the term. At least you realise this, since your most recent edit was an attempt to rewrite the introduction of that article to support your own definition. If you want to catalogue the applications that are part of the GNOME project, I have no problem with that... but I will not allow you to do it by redefining what "GNOME application" means, on this article or on List of GNOME applications and then trying to force it through by using an edit war.
Evolution was only made "part of GNOME" in 2.8 according to the 2.8 release notes. If it were a GNOME app previously, why would this even be mentioned? Chris Cunningham 11:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Apparently you intend to force it on this article and List of GNOME applications regardless of common sense or basic wikipedia ettiquette of seeking a consensus. Your childish edit summaries just suggest that you are only interested in getting your own way ("Stop energy"? Really? How about preventing you from unliterally redefining what a GNOME application is?).
Seeing as you still haven't provided any evidence that your definition of the term is the most widely used, I don't see how I'm redefining anything. Chris Cunningham 11:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I dispute this. A simple google for "not a gnome app" turns up 318 results
Try googling for 'fatuous nonsense'. The results are about as relevant to this discussion.
So the opinions of random editors can force a decision, but real-world evidence of usage is irrelevant? Mayhaps you mistook this for some other project?
Based on the fact that I personally use "GNOME app" to refer only to things which are part of the GNOME project itself, and that at least 318 Google results for "not a gnome app" turn up people who appear to use the term the same way as me,
This is a nonsensical extrapolation of a google result. I repeat: your entire case is based on a definition that apparently only you use, and certainly not the GNOME project itself. I'm willing to listen to other editors' views on the matter. You aren't.
I said I wasn't prepared to *wait* for other people to comment because some random guy takes issue with change. This isn't the same as ignoring consensus. I don't see a meandering list with little real discussion of its contents as consensus at this stage. Chris Cunningham 11:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
You may refer to that as "stop energy", I refer to it as ensuring that this article doesn't end up chopped to bits by someone determined to edit war until he gets it the way he wants. I repeat: being bold is not about rampaging through articles that you have never edited before trying to impose your own definitions headless of Wikipedia ettiquette. You appear to have the odd idea that instead of waiting and discussing your disputed changes with other editors, it is better to immediately turn it into a revert war. - Motor (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm no more imposing my definition than you are. You've wasted my time for days now imposing your own POV on the article when you could have contributed by making the compromise and diving the article into "GNOME applications" and "GTK applications" or the like. I've got no inclination to spend my own time compromising to appease people who think they have infinite authority to revert changes they disapprove of. Eventually someone will come along and make the compromise and we'll both be happy, but again I'm not planning on holding my breath until that happens. If you can truly see both sides of the debate then edit the article to reflect them . Chris Cunningham 11:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


This integration is provided by the freedesktop standards these days; the toolkit being used is mostly irrelevant to how well integrated an app is into the desktop.

GNOME VFS and Bonobo are specified on freedesktop? That's news.

Why have you been lying about not having an opinion one way or another, then? You just explicitly stated that you think all GTK apps are GNOME apps. You've been as disingenuous as you have been self-righteous.

I haven't been lying, disingenuous or self-righteous -- and I note the fact that you have dragged this down into personal abuse now. I do not take a position in this article over the GTK/GNOME issue (I said this right at the start)... the issue of GTK vs GNOME is old, and has been raised before... and it is somewhat of a grey area and people tend to fight over it. I do have a problem with you unilaterally deciding that something isn't a GNOME application just because you have redefined a commonly used term like "GNOME application" without the slightest justification for it.

How about you provide counter-proof? You've no more of an inherent authority to say which is correct than I have, and yet you're not providing anything new to aid your cause.

You are the one making the change. I've already given you a counter example to your "must be GNOME CVS" argument. I've also asked you to show me where the GNOME project defines GNOME applications as only those in GNOME CVS. You haven't done this. I even made it quite clear that you *could* make the change you are looking for *if* you can back it up by finding where the GNOME project does make this definition. You have done none of these things.

Evolution was only made "part of GNOME" in 2.8 according to the 2.8 release notes. If it were a GNOME app previously, why would this even be mentioned?

... because it wasn't part of GNOME before then. That doesn't stop it being a GNOME application in the same way that Photoshop is a Windows application. Evolution was commonly refered to as a "GNOME application" (as in, an application built using GNOME technology) before it was ever made part of GNOME, and anyone trying to make an argument that it wasn't a GNOME application would, frankly, be regarded as mad. The fact that the release notes say it was made part of GNOME is irrelevant. No-one is arguing against the fatc that it wasn't part of GNOME, and then become part of GNOME.

So the opinions of random editors can force a decision, but real-world evidence of usage is irrelevant? Mayhaps you mistook this for some other project?

First of all, you have provided no "real world evidence". Second... googling for "not a gnome app" and claiming that as evidence is fatuous nonsense.

I said I wasn't prepared to *wait* for other people to comment because some random guy takes issue with change. This isn't the same as ignoring consensus. I don't see a meandering list with little real discussion of its contents as consensus at this stage.

Random guy? I wrote the bulk of this article. Had you bothered to take five minutes to read the talk page instead of starting an edit war, you would have realised that. I disagreed with your change... not only that I've repeatedly said that you are welcome to argue that applications on that list are not GNOME apps but rather GTK apps that use no GNOME technology (if you can show that to be so with an authoritative link). I will *only* refuse to let you remove them on the grounds that they are not in "GNOME CVS" and therefore not "GNOME Applications", because I regard this argument as nonsense. I've even said that if there turns out to be a consesus in your favour, I will let the change go through. You haven't taken that opportunity, instead you have stuck to a bizarre definition of "GNOME application" and provided no evidence to back it up.

I'm no more imposing my definition than you are. You've wasted my time for days now imposing your own POV on the article

So that would be me imposing my definition by repeatedly asking for more opinions would it? Me saying that if the other editors of these articles disagreed with me, then I would agree to the change (you have been reading the replies, haven't you?). Yes, Chris... I'm a real tyrant and POV warrior.

I've got no inclination to spend my own time compromising to appease people who think they have infinite authority to revert changes they disapprove of.

I have authority to make you justify your changes... and that's the same authority that any Wikipedia editor has. Let's remember: you are the one trying to change something. I have repeatedly asked you to justify it... I've tried to divide the issue of GTK vs GNOME away from the issue of GNOME CVS and allow you to make certain removals seperate from your unusual central claim about GNOME CVS... to try to get you to compromise and discuss the matter reasonably and without resorting to edit warring. I remain, as I have throughout this entire business, willing to listen to arguments about about how likes of Gaim are not GNOME applications because they only use GTK stuff. Perhaps I should have written that in bold font this time... I don't want you to overlook it yet again. - Motor (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


Also posted to the KDE page

What constitutes a GNOME/KDE app

User:Thumperward on Talk:GNOME insists that the term "GNOME application" applies only to applications which are in GNOME CVS, and are part of the GNOME release process. I disagree, and reverted the article to its original form until some kind of wider consensus was reached on what appears to be his unilateral redefinition of "GNOME application" -- on whether it is acceptable or not. Thumperward is continuing to revert the article in an attempt to force his view over and above and discussion of the matter. We are currently way over the 3RR and getting nowhere. I therefore feel it necessary to widen the matter. The issue is larger than just GNOME, it also applies to KDE applications. What are the views on this? I understand the distinction between GTK apps and GNOME apps, and Qt apps and KDE apps... that is not really the issue at the moment. Does not being a direct part of the KDE project and not stored in KDE CVS mean that an application is not refered to as a "KDE Application". For the sake of keeping the discussion in one place and manageable, could any replies please be added to Talk:GNOME. Thank for any input. - Motor (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The issue of "GTK or GNOME" and "Qt app or KDE app" is very much at the centre of this. Please see the commentary here [3] by Aaron Seigo on how to differentiate between KDE-the-platform and KDE-the-libraries for why GNOME and KDE both have problems with the name of the project being the same as the name associated with the toolkit and technologies. I'm of the opinion that this needs to be discussed in the article itself, and that lists of applications using the desktop toolkits do not lazily throw in anything at all which uses GTK or Qt because of the distinction. Chris Cunningham 11:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The issue of "GTK or GNOME" and "Qt app or KDE app" is very much at the centre of this. Please go back and reread the threads above, you will see that I am quite willing to discuss GTK app vs GNOME app -- I said this quite specifically two or three times at least. What I am not willing to do is let you redefine "GNOME Application" to say that it must be in GNOME CVS and be part of the GNOME release. That makes no sense and flies in the face of the accepted and common use of such a term. That is what the link with KDE is about... and that is why I decided to widen the discussion there too, since your claim would directly affect that article too. On this specific issue, whether it is a GTK or GNOME, or QT or KDE app is irrelevant.
As I said before, if you want to remove an individual entry and argue that it doesn't use any GNOME technology... fine (as long as you back it up. The example I gave you above was Gaim... does it use GNOME technology or is it purely a GTK app?). If you want argue that it is purely a GTK app, not a GNOME app... fine. But your basic claim, and the reason you kept making wholesale removals of several apps is that they aren't "GNOME Applications", by your own unusual definition. As for the naming issue: this article quite clearly states that the list is of major applications based on GNOME. I don't think "based on GNOME" is misleading... had it said "part of GNOME", then you would have had a point, but it doesn't and never has, and neither did the other article to which you applied your new definition of "GNOME application": List of GNOME applications. In fact, that article was quite explicit... example: "the following list presents software products which use GNOME development libraries and technology". - Motor (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
If you can explain what is meant by "GNOME technology" outside of bonobo and the capplet spec, I'll accept that you know what you're talking about. My definition is not unusual unless you can provide proof that it it unusual. And having previously stated that you think GTK apps are GNOME apps by definition anyway, even baiting me into providing proof for you is disingenuous. I'm not reverting this for the time being simply to see if any commentary is generated opposing the move. if it isn't, I'm removing those entries and reworking the article to reflect a position which has so far only been opposed by one person.
Secondly, my comment about apps in GNOME CVS being GNOME apps was made in comments, not in the article. All the things I removed fail the bonobo+capplet test as well, so if you're truly being objective then you have to let them slide on your own terms. Chris Cunningham 14:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
If you can explain what is meant by "GNOME technology" outside of bonobo and the capplet spec, I'll accept that you know what you're talking about.' -- how gracious of you. Technology developed under the aegis of the GNOME project. That includes things like GNOME VFS, which I stated earlier too... or gconf, or let's add another: use of Evolution data server (which is now part of GNOME). For example: Gaim recent desktop bounty. To say, for example, that Gaim isn't a GNOME app (ie. doesn't use GNOME technology) just because it doesn't *have* to use EDS and instead rely only on GTK and offer less functionality is splitting hairs to an insane degree. Incidentally, I would not oppose Gaim being listed as a Windows application either, nor would I oppose it being listed as an "Y" application, if "Y" was a GTK-based desktop which Gaim used technology from, even if it wasn't essential. This is because I'm not someone with a rabid hardline attitude to it who thinks you can draw straight dividing lines between two very grey areas. BTW: During your scattergun approach to removal, you chopped out GnomeBaker from the List of GNOME applications -- a project that is explicity described by its own developers as "the best CD/DVD burner for the GNOME desktop". So you'll have to excuse me if I'm slightly dubious about your judgement on this matter, given your record and hardline approach. However, The GIMP entry in this article is one I've always found slightly dodgy since, although it uses GTK, it has always explicitly eschwed GNOME integration (unless I'm misinformed and/or something has changed recently). Anyone would be hard pressed to defend including it in an article specifically about GNOME, as a GNOME app. Find a link showing that attitude from a GIMP developer, and you can remove it from the list without me reverting it and with no quarrel at all. I'll even give you a guarantee that as long as I'm watching the article I will not let anyone add it back in (unless the attitude of the GIMP developers changes... obviously).
I'm not reverting this for the time being simply to see if any commentary is generated opposing the move. if it isn't, I'm removing those entries and reworking the article to reflect a position which has so far only been opposed by one person. -- If you want to remove an entry because you say it has no connection to GNOME beyond GTK and you can supply a good authoritative link to show that... (for example: a link in which the developers explicity state that they want nothing to do with anything other than GTK), I will agree to that. If you remove any entry just because you are bringing back your GNOME CVS nonsense, or just because you it doesn't match some odd demand. I will revert it and we will be back to square one.
And having previously stated that you think GTK apps are GNOME apps by definition anyway, even baiting me into providing proof for you is disingenuous. -- what? I haven't baited you into anything. I've asked you to define why you think they are not GNOME apps. Your main argument was that they weren't in "GNOME CVS". I've tried to get you to divide your arguments into sensible chunks so that we could make some progress... I repeatedly said that you can make arguments about an application being GTK-only if you like. Furthermore, I stated an opinion on the talk page about one point of view regarding GTK and GNOME that I find appealing (mainly due to the fact that it would shut up whiners who seem to have noting better to do than endless and mostly outdated arguments over GTK vs GNOME) ... namely that since lots of GNOME work has been (for good dependency purposes) pushed down into GTK, it makes pure GTK applications de facto GNOME apps. It's not a deeply held belief; it wasn't used as part of the argument earlier; and if an application explicitly integrated itself with another GTK-based desktop (say, XFCE) and explicity said it was not having anything to do with GNOME then I wouldn't dream of calling it a GNOME app. It wasn't a slip-up... it was a fairly mild statement on a subject (GTK vs GNOME) that I care little about at the best of times and consider the domain of over-zealous crackpots with way too much free time and lack of perspective. I haven't personally tried to push it into the article or onto you. If you read back over the threads carefully, you'll see this.
All the things I removed fail the bonobo+capplet test as well, so if you're truly being objective then you have to let them slide on your own terms.
Fail the bonobo/capplet test? Hardly. One of the Abiword developers said this: "AbiWord is depending more and more on GNOME technologies." As I said, I didn't add most of the entries in the list (I can't swear I didn't add *any*, but I don't remember it if I did)... but I'm not going to let you remove any without a good argument on your side, and just on your say-so that the project wants, or has, no connection with GNOME. You want a straightforward statement of where I stand now for the sake of just making some progress, OK: Find an authoritative statement from an app listed here (or List of GNOME applications that explicity eschews any conenction with GNOME or its technology (for example: it wants to be an XFCE app), and you can remove it without any quarrel from me.

GNOME applications

I've rewritten the introduction to this section -- I don't believe it was ambiguous before, but now it is explicit. I am still open (as I have been all along) to discussion regarding whether the list contains apps that explictly regard themselves as completely uninvolved with GNOME and do not use GNOME technology in any way. The GIMP being one particular example. - Motor (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I should also add here, before Chris decides to restart his little edit war, that he hadn't even bothered to carefully check the facts for his original edit. At least two of the apps he tried to remove under the banner of not being GNOME applications: Gnumeric and RhythymBox have their websites on gnome.org, keep their code in GNOME CVS and closely associate themselves with GNOME (if not outright declare that they are GNOME apps) on their websites. So basically, by even his own strictest definition, they are GNOME apps.
http://www.gnome.org/projects/rhythmbox/
"Rhythmbox is an integrated music management application, originally inspired by Apple's iTunes. It is free software, designed to work well under the GNOME Desktop, and based on the powerful GStreamer media framework."
http://www.gnome.org/projects/rhythmbox/development.html
"Rhythmbox is maintained primarily in the GNOME CVS."
http://www.gnome.org/projects/gnumeric/
"The Gnumeric spreadsheet is part of the GNOME desktop environment: a project to create a free, user friendly desktop environment."
So much for me wasting your time, Chris.
In addition to this, he was also removing Grip from List of GNOME applications page -- when the Grip homepage says: "Grip is a cd-player and cd-ripper for the Gnome desktop."
I've already (further up this tedious thread) mentioned a similar situation with GNOMEBaker
Liferea: "tries to fill this gap by creating a fast, easy to use, easy to install news aggregator for GTK/GNOME."
Alexandria "Alexandria is a GNOME application to help you manage your book collection." this had to come out of google cache because it's site appears to be blank now.
Beagle -- "Beagle requires some Gtk and Gnome libraries for its internal working" -- it also keeps it's code in gnome cvs.
GnomeSword -- "Gnomesword is a Bible study application for GNOME"
I kinda lost interest in investigating much further than that. His edit was hopelessly ill-informed, wrong and not even consistent across the two articles, or with his own stated reasons. However, I still keep my offer open -- if he wishes to find a GTK application in the list on either article that explicitly distances itself from GNOME, then he is welcome to remove it provided he includes the proof. - Motor (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


The GIMP is also kept in GNOME CVS (http://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/gimp/) (anoncvs.gnome.org and anoncvs.gimp.org are the same server).
I have run into the problem of defining a GNOME app before, I think this is an interesting discussion, perhaps we could try to reach a consensus on what constitutes a GNOME (or KDE or Window) application ? - Karderio 12:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The thing about The GIMP is that (at least the last time I checked, which was ages ago) it ruled itself out of involvement with GNOME -- which IMO, would be a very good reason for removing it from the list. A couple of days ago I tried to start some kind of discussion for thrashing out a basic set of guidelines for including an app on Talk:List of GNOME applications. Views welcome. - Motor (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

GNOME WikiProject

A WikiProject for GNOME/GTK software... an attempt to collect, clean up, organise and expand the range of GNOME/GTK articles. Is anyone interested in setting it up and running it? Is it worth it... are there large gaps in the coverage that would benefit from a more centralised organisation and team work (collaboration of the week etc)? - Motor (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


Seems like a good idea to me ! Many GNOME related pages are in need of attention and many still need to be written, this could really get things going. I would love to help, although I do not have excessive time to devote to Wikipedia. What about a GNOME portal ? Karderio 12:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
A project is less formal, as I understand it. A portal requires more of a committment. I'd start with a project and see where that leads before going to the effort of building a portal. But hey, if someone wants to put in the work for a portal... good on them. I'll be happy to help out, project or portal, time permitting. - Motor (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

What exactly can be put in the GNOME category ?

I have just been wandering about a few GNOME related articles, to find that several were not in the "GNOME" category. I added a couple to this category, but I am unsure exactly which articles should be added.

Things that are not currently in this category, but are rather "GNOME related", are : GTK+, D-BUS, Cairo, GStreamer, HIG (this is not GNOME specific, but mentions and external links to the GNOME HIG, a nice border case) ; although ATK, GObject, Pango are in the "GNOME" category.

Applications that "run under GNOME" but are not in the "GNOME" category are : GAIM, the GIMP, Inkskape ; however Abiword and Banshee are in the "GNOME" category.

My question may seem rather reminiscent of the previous "What constitutes a GNOME/KDE app" discussion, but here it is anyway : what should we include in the GNOME category ?

Categories are rather useful, think of what effort would be saved on starting a GNOME WikiProject if we do not have to search for GNOME related articles. I would like to remark that if we adopt a stringent policy for putting articles in the GNOME category, we could miss out on finding things "slightly GNOME related".

Karderio 23:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worth renaming that catagory to be explicit as "The GNOME Project"... and then adding it only to projects/techinology which really are actually part of The GNOME Project. Then we can see about catagories that better suit the relationship of things like Abiword to GNOME ("GNOME/GTK+"...?) We might also consider a "Freedesktop.org" catagory for things like gstreamer and D-BUS. - Motor (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks like someone went through and added the category "Freedesktop.org" to the necessary pages... cheers. I've created the cat page now. - Motor (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Bold text

Pronounciation

Is it pronounced as in "Garden gnome" or as in "Genome project"? Thanks. PizzaMargherita 21:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Neither. The official pronunciation is given in the third paragraph ("guh-nome"). It is increasingly being both pronounced with a silent G and written as "Gnome" rather than GNOME, but this is still unofficial at this time. Chris Cunningham 09:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
He raises an interesting point though. The official pronunciation is opaque to the point of being useless for the average reader -- although obviously the IPA version should be included. To make it easy to read and quickly understand, the introduction could include a simple "guh-nome" style description too. - Motor (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not written to cater to the lowest common denominator. IPA is used exclusively everywhere else precisely because cruder forms of phonetic spelling are inconsistent and look amateurish. In this particular case the user simply hadn't read the article in the first place. Chris Cunningham 11:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Can you read IPA? I cannot... if that means I belong to the lowest common denominator, so be it. I'm not suggesting that the IPA be removed, merely that it be supplemented by an easier to grasp note that the "G" in GNOME is hard... given that it is a very common mistake. - Motor (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
That would be redundant. Chemistry articles seem to get by fine using equations even though there are people who might not understand them. Certain areas of ambiguity are best handed with formal notation, and the article looks amateurish if this is padded with lay explanations.

Sorry, I had completely missed it in the article. I agree that IPA is the way to go. Also, I think what was intended by "guh-nome" is really /gˈnəʊm/, not /gəˈnəʊm/, but I may be talking rubbish. Also it would be nice to add the alternative unofficial pronounciation used by (I think) lots of people (genome). PizzaMargherita 11:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard it pronounced as "genome". Regardless, there is an official pronunciation, which means that there is a definite right-and-wrong answer to this.
Ok. But speaking of shortcomings of "cruder forms of phonetic spelling", how can we know that by "guh-nome" they meant /gəˈnəʊm/ and not /gˈnəʊm/? Do you really pronounce it /gəˈnəʊm/? PizzaMargherita 17:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I pronounce it with a silent G, but that's not relevant ;) If the IPA given is incorrect it should be changed, but IPA is still the sole preferred format for pronunciation guidelines. (in fact, you're probably right about the IPA being wrong just now, it's just a case of tracking down an unambiguous source.) Chris Cunningham 09:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
What's the source of your pronunciation? /gəˈnəʊm/ is markedly British. I've always thought the official pronunciation was /gə'nom/ (not /'d​͡ʒinom/ = "genome"). Diphthongal O doesn't exist in American Standard. gejpolak 15:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Style guidelines

I assume you mean this bit, Motor:

"State the obvious

State facts which may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader. Usually, such a statement will be in the first sentence or two of the article. For example, consider this sentence: 

   * The Ford Thunderbird was conceived as a response to the Chevrolet Corvette and entered production for the 1955 model year.

Here no mention is made of the Ford Thunderbird's fundamental nature: it is an automobile. It assumes that the reader already knows this—an assumption that may not be correct, especially if the reader is not familiar with Ford or Chevrolet. "

This is an article about a Free Software desktop available exclusively to technical or Linux-based users. If "Linux distribution" is not to be expanded then "LiveCD" shouldn't be. And I hate this incessant need to continually insert Windows comparisons into Free Software articles as if to buff them up. LiveCD is linked, and that's all that is necessary on an article which isn't actually about operating systems. Chris Cunningham 11:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Chris, We mention that LiveCDs are available, so we give an explanation of what they are and what they do. Explaining technical terms is what writing a good article is all about. Removing the LiveCD explanation on the grounds that other terms are not explained makes no sense. If you want to add a small amount of explanation for "operating systems" or "Linux distributions" (which is really part of operating systems)-- go ahead. It will improve the article providing it is not too detailed and explains things just enough to allow the average reader to understand how it applies.
The average reader is not the lowest common denominator. The term "LiveCD" is a familiar piece of jargon to technical or Linux users, has its own article, and if the rule above were applied everywhere then it would be to the detriment of the encyclopedia.
You might also like to read this before continuing. "Linking" to a subject is no good for a printed version of this article and the style guidelines are quite clear that it is desirable for an article to be as self-contained as possible.
This is an excuse for lazy, prattling articles full of redundancy. A prime example would be the Linux article, which until recently was about twice as long for exactly no gain.
the mention of Microsoft Windows is to make it clear for the many windows users... who are in the majority... that it can be used without changing their system. Buffing it up has nothing to do with it.
GNOME was not intended to be used by people "without changing their systems". That it *can* be is not an excuse to go off on a tangent in the middle of the article, especially when said tangent was simply advocacy ("go use GNOME! You don't even need to uninstall Windows!")
This is an article about a Free Software desktop available exclusively to technical or Linux-based users. -- you are very, very wrong about that. The GNOME desktop is explicity not aimed at technical users, and it works across a variety of platforms many of which have been depployed in businesses.
Not every article on Free Software has to include advocacy. That it is aimed at a certain audience does not mean the article has to be an advert
Similarly, this article is not aimed at a technical audience, but rather a general readership. If it falls short of explaining certain jargon terms... then you are more than welcome to expand it with that in mind. Chopping out useful and relevant context and relying on links does not improve it. - Motor (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
This article isn't "aimed" at anyone currently. Aiming implies that some direction is being taken. That said, when I look at it you're probably right, so a quick nod in the right direction at the expense of Yet More Distro Listing should be fine. Constantly just firing off reverts is not helping, though. Please try to be less antagonistic in the first instance. Chris Cunningham 14:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Chris, this is not helpful. This article isn't "aimed" at anyone currently. -- yes, it is. It is aimed at the general reader. Whether it is doing that job well, is open for debate and improvement. You have not addressed the concerns regarding jargon, and the style guidelines. Other articles referencing livecds are not the issue here -- they should be explaining what they are and themselves aiming to better follow the best practices of Wikipedia style. Your argument that I should fix those is not relevant. Your breaking of this article to be like those, and expecting me to fix those is cart-before-horse. You had concerns that "Linux Distribution" as "Operating system" were not explained: as I said above, you are welcome to explain them succinctly in this article if you wish, as it would be an improvement. But as things stand, you want to remove relevant, valuable information that furthers this article's purpose as an encylopaedia article. Furthermore, I hope you note that I did not revert your original edit. I agreed with much of it re: platforms. I merely redid it to avoid removing the short explanation of what a LiveCD is. Please check it again if you doubt my word. Thank you. NOTE: I have removed the Windows reference... it seems to be a contentious point for you, and it is a minor issue for me. - Motor (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I already committed an edit which incorporated a quick explanation. Compared to the status quo the only thing that's been removed now is a needless listo-distros. Please check if this is alright.
As for the "Wikipedia style", the section I quoted is just as valid as yours, and I am perfectly capable of (and qualified to) follow basic stylistic guidelines. There's no need to bicker over this. Chris Cunningham 15:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I already committed an edit which incorporated a quick explanation. -- the explanation was too short, in my opinion. I have restored it... however, I do see your point about a list of LiveCDs. I have removed them and now only the official GNOME LiveCD is restored. I am unsure of what bickering you keep referring to. You edit summaries are somewhat abrasive, but I am attempting to reach a consensus here Chris. Your original edit was not reversed as you seemed to be claiming. Can we agree, at least, on that? - Motor (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Cool, although I've going to swap some clauses in there. Sorry, got a habit of getting hot-headed on here as you can probably tell.
Well... I've gotten angry myself more than once. IMO, this edit made the article more readable without losing anything and was a definite improvement. Thank you. - Motor (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of the word GNOME

While I know that GNOME is an acronym for GNU Network Object Model Environment, I am curious exactly why the software suite has this name. In particular with regard to the network aspect of the name, why did this software include this word from the beginning? I am not trying to start any sort of a flame war here, but GNOME for as long as I have used it from 1.4 onward has possessed atrocious networking support, so I would really appreciate a critical explanation of the inclusion of the word into its name. Before labeling me a zealot of any stripe, consider that I have devoted a lot of my time to the GNOME Project in the field of bug writing and small patches. --Matt.proud 02:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The name was proposed by Elliot Lee, one of the authors of ORBit and the Object Activation Framework (OAF). So it refers to the possibilities that people, at the time, thought CORBA would bring to a desktop environment. Since that no longer reflects the core vision of the GNOME project, many members of the project advocate dropping the acronym and re-naming "GNOME" to "Gnome" -- markmc 10:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Would you like to add that explanation to the article? - Motor (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I added it ages ago... but we could do with a source (mailing list link would do) to confirm it. The information posted here on the talk page came from User:Mark McLoughlin, a Red Hat employee. There's no reason to doubt it, but we really need some kind of verification. - Motor (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Entities Vs Unicode

There's a good talk piece at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dashes) which discusses why using character entities in a Unicode-enabled application (which has a bar along the bottom where you can just click to enter one) is broken. This is 2006. I'm more concerned about my own ability to read what I'm editing than any hypothetical argument about other people's broken editors.Chris Cunningham 20:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

We could start by reading the actual article: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes). Use the HTML entity &mdash;, which the MediaWiki engine automatically converts into a numeric entity in the rendered HTML. The numeric entities, &#8212; and &#x2014;, should be avoided in the wikitext: they produce the same result in the rendered HTML, but are more difficult for editors to interpret. You may also type an em dash directly if your keyboard allows it. Discussion on the talk page are just that... discussions. Mdash is allowed, that's what was used and is used across many articles, with no problems. When the manual of style specifically says no to the entity mdash, then I'll change it. Until then... I'll be returning it to the way that makes things easy, mdash, when you are finished with your current changes. As for readbility: were we talking about numeric entities, I would agree... but we are not. In truth, I'm more concerned about your outburst. It was not acceptable. As I've explained to you before (in the pages you just archived), your edits are not being reverted... parts of them are being changed back. Just because other editors do not agree with everything you change is not an excuse for your behaviour, your inappropriate use of edit summaries for taking shots at people, attitude and talk page raging, nor is it justification for your repeated edit warring. However, the fact that you had the good sense to delete your own post is encouraging.
Regarding the GNOME versions and start pages. Those are useful references. The start pages can go, but the mailing list release announcements should definitely be kept. Are you going to show some move towards working constructively with others and add those mailing list references back, or will I have to do it? - Motor (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Archived release information is not encyclopedic. Is it to sit there forever? Lots of things are useful references, but this doesn't mean that lots of things must be linked individually from articles. I'm planning on reorganising the links anyway, so I might stick a link to the archived information back in, but not a huge list of archived posts.
As for the mdashes, the style guide doesn't give an opinion on whether to use entities or unicode. It simply explains when to use each kind of dash. That's why there's a talk page on the subject. Your interpretation is unjustifiable in light of the fact that the character generator box at the bottom of the edit page inserts Unicode entries and not entities, and while I eventually relented on other changes because you came up with good reasons I'm not making my own life more difficult by having to decode entities mentally when I'm editing.
So basically, in the interests of fair play and compromise, I'll try to come up with a sensible way of displaying the archive information (i.e. not linking to over a dozen archived emails) if you will refrain from removing the Unicode.
As for the attitude, lecturing me is not a good way to ensure it doesn't happen again. Chris Cunningham 21:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Archived release information is not encyclopedic. -- archived information is the source for everything on Wikipedia. It is the foundation on which this place is built. Lots of things are useful references, but this doesn't mean that lots of things must be linked individually from articles. -- lots of things are not actual GNOME release announcements. I'm planning on reorganising the links anyway, so I might stick a link to the archived information back in, but not a huge list of archived posts. -- I will be adding the links to the mailing list announcements back in... whether you do it or not. I probably won't add them into the external links section, I'll make them notes in the version table.
As for the mdashes, the style guide doesn't give an opinion on whether to use entities or unicode. -- which is exactly what I said. It is not making your life more difficult Chris, because you can read them. It does make the lives of people using external editors more difficult (me included). So I will be changing them back to HTML entities. If you wish to push this matter further, go ahead. I've repeatedly tried to reason with you on a number of matters, and put up with your behaviour because some of your edits are useful... but this particular point is not negotiable as far as I'm concerned.
So basically, in the interests of fair play and compromise, I'll try to come up with a sensible way of displaying the archive information (i.e. not linking to over a dozen archived emails) if you will refrain from removing the Unicode. -- that's not a compromise Chris. You've changed a lot of things, most of which I have no problem with. I'm not about to start bargaining with the two things I disagree with. Let's not go back to pretending that I'm reverting all your changes.
As for the attitude, lecturing me is not a good way to ensure it doesn't happen again. -- nevertheless, considering your repeated behaviour, I feel it is important to point out the relevant policy regarding these matters. Thanks. - Motor (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Have it your way. I'd rather edit articles than spend time reading up on dispute resolution. I see you've already been through the process. Chris Cunningham 22:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I have indeed, and I've no doubt you'll find yourself in a similar situation sooner or later if you rack up enough time and edits here (BTW: I don't feel the need to remove things from my talk page). Feel free to investigate those disputes (on the talk pages of the articles/editors/dispute mediators in question -- my talk page is only a quarter of the story)... the resolution of one in particular makes for interesting reading for anyone concerned with Wikipedia policy regarding editor intimidation, information reliability and many other things. Just make sure you look into the context too -- for example, there were some really quite disgraceful off-site attacks on Wikipedia editors. With luck, all the fuss could result in some policy changes to help put a stop to it. - Motor (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Release announcements and press releases

I've added some of the press releases and sources in the version table, but there doesn't appear to be a GNOME press release for all versions (particularly the earlier ones). So I've used the mailing list announcement for those. An actual GNOME press release is more reliable (if anyone can find one), but the mailing list link will do. I'd appreciate anyone checking that there were no mistakes while adding them. Thanks. - Motor (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. The GNOME press page states that it has a complete archive of GNOME press releases, and their lack of Google juice seems to confirm that 2.4, 2.6 etc. didn't get press releases at all. Chris Cunningham 14:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I've no problem with this edit... mentioning the alternate pronunication, but we really need a better way of wording it for an introduction. The current version is too jargony re: phonological grammar. How about: "acceptable for those whose native language makes the hard 'G' difficult to pronounce." Or something along those lines? IPA, pronunciation, phonology etc isn't something I'm all that familiar with, so I would appreciate feedback. - Motor (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, I can see, how /ˈnoʊm/ would happen, but does anybody really pronounce this /gəˈnoʊm/? I would have thought it would be something like /dʒiˈnoʊm/ or /ˈdʒiːnoʊm/ (like the word genome). Iago4096 14:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

People who don't say /ˈnoʊm/, in my experience as a GNOME developer, say /gəˈnoʊm/. /ˈdʒiːnoʊm/ introduces an ambiguity (after having too much of my mail lost by people who misheard someone who wasn't used to the name, and sent it to ...@genome.org). Compare the directly-related pronunciation of GNU. Marnanel (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Language bindings

The wording of this section is unnecessarily complicated because of the "GNOME app" kerfuffle. Half the apps on the "list of GNOME applications" are written in non-blessed langauges, so the article is contradictory. Contradiction is, like, bad. Chris Cunningham 11:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The List of GNOME applications section is clearly defined. If the wording of the future developments section is too complicated... then that can be made clearer. It would help, for example, help to have more information on the GNOME release process what does and does not get included from the larger GNOME project, why and how those decisions are made. We currently skimp on that to the detriment of the article. BTW: I mentioned this ages ago but, the architecture section is a mess. It was originally started just to list the main bits making up GNOME. If anyone wants to take on the job of describing the architecture of GNOME clearly and simply that would be great. I've often hoped we could find a diagram that describes the overall dependencies and layers of GNOME -- hardware, kernel, glibc, glib/gtk/pango etc etc. - Motor (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Chris, you seem to be confusing "GNOME application" with "software distributed as part of the official GNOME release". A GNOME application can be written by anybody, and would be defined as "an application intended for GNOME". Software distributed as part of the official GNOME release is even better defined, it is the software that is taken from the GNOME CVS as part of a GNOME release (parts of CVS are excluded from a release, CVS can contain experimental code or junk). To be accepted into GNOME CVS, an application must match strict criteria and be chosen by the GNOME Foundation.
I would say that the fact that the GNOME applications are not written in a "blessed" language is not a contradiction, as a GNOME application may be written in many languages, as long as it doesn't expect to be included in any official GNOME release. - 213.103.12.232 23:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually I've realized that using GNOME CVS as a basis for defining software that is part of a GNOME release is not a good idea at all. GNOME CVS contains many many things that are not part of GNOME (the Gimp for example). Strictly speaking a GNOME release consists of the software you can find at http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/ in the platform, admin, bindings and desktop sub directories - this IS GNOME. This of course is written in 100% pure C (will all the glue : the toolchain - makefiles, config, bash scripts, macros...) - 213.103.12.232 10:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed all discussion of C/Python etc from the architecture and just listed the bindings (moved the ref down into Future developments). It's ugly, but no uglier than the rest of the section... and the section really needs a rewrite anyway. - Motor (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Why was the sentence saying what language GNOME is written in moved from the architecture section : "The GNOME desktop itself and the applications that are part of a GNOME release are currently mostly written in C." ?
Is it not interesting when talking about system architecture to mention the prevailing programming language used to construct the system ? Would somebody interested in the GNOME architecture think to look in the future developments section for this information ?
213.103.12.232 18:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the architecture section needs a complete overhaul, regardless of anything else. - Motor (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
True, many things are yet to be done. However I still don't see why the mention of the programming language used to develop GNOME should be removed from the architecture section. Is it not by putting the relevant information into the relevant sections, even if slightly unpolished, that bit by bit we may construct a complete and well written article ? In that case removing relevant information from the appropriate section, to add it as fluff and as an unnecessary detail elsewhere would seem rather counter productive, would it not ?
I agree that "discussion of C/Python" is not at home here, but reference to the programming language used for development would seem primordial. - 213.103.12.232 23:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Nautilus - just another app?

It might make sense to categorize Nautilus under "Architecture" rather than "Applications", since it's a rather key part of the integrated desktop. Twinxor t 23:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In that case, gnome-panel is also as yet missing. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I've been mulling over the previous comments and thinking about what can be done to make things a bit clearer. Fist of all I noticed that in some parts of the article, there seems to be an effort to distinguish between "The GNOME Desktop", which I suppose would be the user visible parts, and the rest. However, in much of the rest of the article, "The GNOME Desktop" is used simply as a synonym of "GNOME".
Let me start with trying to define GNOME : as mentioned above, if you go to the GNOME website, and ask to download GNOME (http://www.gnome.org/start/2.14/), there are four directories full of "tarballs" : this IS GNOME ! In the platform directory are basically the guts of GNOME, few things if any are user visible, but you need all of this to get anything working - here are the core libraries : GTK+, ORBit, Gnome-VFS, etc. In the desktop directory is much of the rest of GNOME : user visible applications (file-roller, gedit...) and other "less core" libraries (gstreamer, librsvg...). Then you have the bindings directory, with the official GNOME bindings, and the admin directory (witch I think is new with GNOME 2.14) witch contains a couple of administration tools. An important note is that these tarballs contain nothing other than pure C source code - I have checked them and asked about on IRC.
Correction - the tools in the admin directory are written in python. I'm disappointed to see that it is not so clear cut - further research needed.
Karderio 01:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Now back to the definition of "GNOME Desktop", if we look at the GNOME website, we find that "GNOME Desktop" is simply used as a synonym of GNOME. (search for site:www.gnome.org "GNOME desktop" and site:www.gnome.org version GNOME) For example the site says things like "GNOME 2.14 is the latest version of the popular, multi-platform free desktop environment" as well as "The GNOME desktop is now faster and easier to configure than ever before" here "GNOME" and "GNOME Desktop" are interchangeable (with a little rewording). Moreover, there is no clear separation, as to API and GUI packages, between the tarballs in the platform and those in the desktop directories in the distribution.
So here is my point : when our article says things like : "A great deal of software is created or hosted under the umbrella of the GNOME project, some of which is collected and released together as The GNOME Desktop." and goes on to say "The Desktop is used in conjunction with an operating system" it seems to me that "The GNOME Desktop" is implied to be somehow different to "GNOME". So, I've gone about removing a few specially selected "Dektop" occurrences from the article to try to avoid confusion, any comments ?
Karderio 01:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I have reorganised the applications section, to give prominence to applications that are included as part of GNOME (http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/ desktop - platform - bindings - admin). I have proposed a page "applications included in GNOME" to list all these applications.
Karderio 02:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Several comments:
  • I think gnome-terminal and gnome-panel deserve a mention in the article, even if they are red links (this should never be a deciding criterion!)
  • I don't see the need for two separate "list of" pages. Better to make one page with two sections and avoid duplication.
  • I see several apps in the "Other applications" section that a) I'd never heard of, and b) I'm not convinced many people use (Alexandria and Banshee). Do we have some usage figures (e.g. Debian, Arch or any other distro which mainly installs packages by ftp rather than from CD would have the appropriate figures in their ftp log) that we can base a list of "most popular apps" on?
Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I have added gnome-terminal and gnome-panel to the list and merged the two seperate lists of official and other applications into one. I have removed Alexandria, but have left banshee, as I belive it is "en vogue". I'm sure that the list could be taylored to be more representative of major applications, perhaps gnomefiles could be useful for this ?
Karderio 20:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
A page for "applications included with GNOME" would be a good start in sorting this out, but I fear that the "representative subset" included here is unlikely to be reduced unless a consensus can be reached on killing all the lists. Chris Cunningham 15:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

GTK sub-projects and Qt

I don't see any justification for removing the mention of those GTK sub-projects -- certainly not "lists taking over the earth". If we are discussing GNOME architecture (and we don't do this very well), then GObjects have to be mentioned.

This article is creeping gradually towards being nothing more than a long series of lists. Those parts of GTK+ which come free for developers need not be elaborated on here. Chris Cunningham 08:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I've shifted the text which follows up a bit, so GTK looks more fleshed-out. Again, as far as GNOME is concerned i18n support comes for free from the toolkit. If there are subprojects of GTK which developers need worry about, they should of course be added back. Chris Cunningham 08:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As for the short description of the Qt controversy... it's the main reason for GNOME existing, and the licensing problems are the big reason why the desktops are still separate. It's entirely appropriate to address it, and matter has ben discussed in detail previously.

That paragraph says exactly the same thing as the one preceeding it. Qt's history after GNOME is launched is irrelevant, at that point Qt's license wasn't important. Chris Cunningham 08:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I've added a bit about the reconciliation, but don't want to expand upon it too much without references... has there ever been a serious move to combine the two / relicense appropriately? I wouldn't have thought Trolltech would be very receptive to LGPLing Qt... Chris Cunningham 08:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional: why were the notes attached to the GNOME release versions changed to simple http links, rather than references. The numbering is now broken. - Motor (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It keeps the references section short enough to fit on one page while retaining the information. I'll admit that this is an imperfect solution. Chris Cunningham 08:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
References are references... if they take more than one page, so be it (what page size did you have in mind?). These are references the same as any other on the page, and I have converted them back. As for the removed Qt text -- you might note that that the text was written over many many revisions, stripped down, built back up and argued over. The end result is just enough to describe the history of the QT toolkit and the how that has touched and affected the development of GNOME, and why the two are separate -- your wholesale removal was not justified and your cut down version misses much of the story (which you would know had you, as suggested, read the archives). I'm not reverting it at the moment, since I'll wait and see how this plays out.
There's plenty of backstory which isn't mentioned, and perhaps an "early history" section would be good. But that paragraph was little more than nitpicking. Qt isn't grestly more relevant to one's understanding of the story than, say, Motif is, and regardless of how many rewrites that section had it still duplicated large parts of the preceeding sentence. Chris Cunningham 13:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
BTW: Please stop using inline replies. It confuses things. Incidentally, if you are wondering why I didn't use the "cite web" template, it's because IMO, it's over-complicated and tedious with very little benefit... but if someone wants to convert to it... well, that's upto them. ;- Motor (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Those parts of GTK+ which come free for developers need not be elaborated on here. -- simple widget support no. Glib/Pango and ATK are all designed to be used without GTK. They are fundamental enough to GNOME to be mentioned specifically. I don't care whether it is done in a list. As I said above, they need more detail not less... particularly the way GNOME uses its own objected oriented system with GObjects. - Motor (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with expansion of important parts of the article when it reads better than list expansion. The way you've reincorporated it is great. Chris Cunningham 13:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't the GNOME logo a gnome ? ( and why is it a footprint instead ? )

Miguel talks about this at http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/gnome-history.html -kurros 17:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

GNOME applications

Everyone OK whit adding this to "GNOME applications" ?

Applications that are specifically designed for GNOME will work under KDE too, and vice versa, but the apps usually do not load and work as quick, and there are sometimes bugs when used under an other desktop environment than intended. Similarely, applications designed to work under both desktop environments load and work more slowly then apps disigned spicifically for that desktop environment (e.g. OpenOffice works more slowly under either DE, than Kword works under KDE).

That would be better saved for an article on portability or interoperability (or even freedesktop.org) than on the GNOME article, where it would just look like POV. Chris Cunningham 11:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

On Portal:Free software, GNOME is currently the selected article

(2006-08-21) Just to let you know. The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain on the portal for a week or so. The previous selected article was Netfilter/iptables. Gronky 21:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The selected article has changed again and is now Tor (anonymity network). Gronky 14:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Unicode again

Discussion has died down on this one. Does anyone currently object to adding proper dashes and so on to the article in place of the HTML entities? It makes it rather easier to read. Chris Cunningham 15:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I find the unicode characters harder to read when there are both em dashes and en dashes in an article. Perhaps this is because I always see article source in Bitstream Vera Sans Mono (regardless of whether I'm using Vim or Firefox), where en dash and em dash are indistinguishable. I imagine that must be a popular textarea font for people who edit this article, but I could be wrong. It's easy to see which is which when &mdash; and &ndash; entities are used instead. —ptk✰fgs 20:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms/Usability

The contents of the Criticisms section didn't have a neutral pov and contained factual errors. Also, as has previously been discussed, there's no need for a separate Criticisms section. If there are criticisms of Nautilus, it belongs in the Nautilus section (or on Nautilus' own wikipedia entry). I transformed the Criticisms section to a usability section. It's still kind of weak, and needs to be fleshed out a bit.--Megakelvin 08:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Also grave spelling and grammatical problems, and no sources for the statements. Also, "Nautalis". —ptk✰fgs 17:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as it was added very recently by a new user, I don't think you're going to get many arguments. I'd probably have been less sanguine and just reverted it. As-is it paves the way for further discussion on exactly what distinguishes GNOME. Chris Cunningham 21:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
KDE has a criticisms section so why doesn't Gnome? It's not as if there has never been any and it has been far more high profile than criticism of KDE as Linux Torvalds has spoken out against it several times: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/usability/2005-December/msg00022.html . It would be perfectly fair to discuss the removal of features that might confuse users as that is a major issue. 9point9 21:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The KDE article is rubbish. A criticisms section which was well-written might possibly work, but I think it's testament to the weakness of the arguments put forward that nobody appears to be able to present compelling arguments against the decisions taken. Two flames on a mailing list do not an argument make. Chris Cunningham 23:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The fact that Linus Torvalds doesn't use GNOME is irrelevant. Torvalds is an old-school UNIX-hacker, who expects to be able to configure every minute detail of his desktop. He is also mis-informed about why GNOME works the way that it does. Also, just out of curiosity, could you specify any features that have been removed as they might "confuse users"? Megakelvin 17:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I know that Linus Torvalds has criticized the decisions of the Gnome project for cutting or streamlining out many features in the name of ease of use. Should something be mentioned about that?--Mcvoid 20:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Linus is a kernel hacker, not a GUI designer or a usability guru. His opinion of GNOME usability is orthogonal to GNOME usability. Megakelvin 17:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

2.16 screenshot

I added a screenshot of GNOME 2.16, just to get *something* up, but it's not a terribly optimal one so someone who has a more worthwhile shot should definitely replace mine. -Senori 04:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made a clean screenshot on Ubuntu, I hope it looks good ;) --Emx 18:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem with this is that Ubuntu's GNOME is modified, for instance, the theme is different and nautilus' default behaviour is different. Also, the screenshot is very widescreen, it looks a bit silly. bruce89 21:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


Evolution screenshots

These need descriptions. Right now it just looks like the two latest ones just have more stuff than 2.6 and it unclear what the changes were that I am supposed to be looking at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.115.166.174 (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Template

I made a {{GNOME}}. It could use a lot of improvement. I've added it to this page, but no others yet. Marnanel 19:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

See Template:GNOME.

I'm interested in creating one dedicated to GNOME software much like Template:KDE. Before I begin, is there any reason against making a new one? — Sam 05:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Usability / criticism

The criticism section is far too short. It doesn't need its own section when all it's doing is providing a critique for GNOME's we-know-better-than-users philosophy. Maybe it should be expanded, maybe not, but for the time being it's only three or four lines long and doesn't warrant its own header IMO. Chris Cunningham 22:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There is a genuine controversy over the GNOME project's less-is-more philosophy and the wording "This design methodology of careful evaluation of all preferences has, however, been widely misunderstood" suggests severe bias right away. - Cyrus XIII 21:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
"Severe bias"? Please explain. Two facts were stated; fact1: the GNOME project has a less-is-more philosophy. Fact2: the less-is-more philosophy has been widely misunderstood. The Torvalds quote was a perfect example of that misunderstanding; it made false statements about the GNOME project, as well as being based on incorrect information to begin with. Megakelvin 08:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
"Misunderstood" suggests that given circumstances are essentially good but some people just don't get it - that's not a neutral point of view. If the GNOME project considers removing certain options for the benefit of its users and some potential users remain unsatisfied with the functionality offered to them, we are discussing a disagreement and not a misunderstanding. The Torvalds quote wasn't very flattering, neither in what it said nor how it was written (which might actually work against the writer's point, mind you), but it sums up the issue some people take with the GNOME way. The Metacity patch story on the other hand does not have anything to do with GNOME's usability. - Cyrus XIII 09:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the only real problem here is the word "misunderstood". Torvalds deliberately "doesn't understand" the GNOME philosophy because that's not how he thinks of UIs, even though he uses the exactly same philosophy all the time in kernel decisions. For otherwise-intelligent free software users it should really be phrased just as a disagreement with the philosophy rather than a misunderstanding, if only for NPOV reasons. Chris Cunningham 16:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The Torvalds quote is anything but NPOV. He's basing his bashing on "what he's heard" from other people -- "other people" who were also misinformed. The plural of "anecdote" is not "fact". Havoc sums it up in a later post to the flamewar: "So far every specific example we've chased down (file selector location entry, print dialog PPD, configurable WM buttons) has had a different backstory than this stuff about "usability"/"confusing to idiots" you mention." Megakelvin 18:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

GNOME Glass theme

Does anyone know how to get the "glass" theme mentioned in the article? -- Stormtalon 09:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 11:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot

personally, i think that screenshot should be removed, because it shows an environmnt using Beryl or Compiz, which are not part of GNOME. Attys 03:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

How can you tell which WM it's using? The Wednesday Island 21:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The screenshot being used now (Sept 24, 2009) is also a ubuntu screenshot with compiz or possibly beryl. Metacity is still Gnome's default WM and Clearlooks is default theme. So it will be best to use that screenshot only. New Gnome is out so I was wondering wouldn't it be appropriate to simply use the screenshot on gnome.org? VivekTalk!! 17:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Readibility

I think that the style of the article is horribly opaque. I had a shot at defuscating the intro, hope you'll like it. Maikel 18:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I do like it. Two things, though: you have the same IPA twice for both pronunciations, and the official pronunciation of "GNOME" (which has a G sound at the start, as the IPA shows) is not the same as "genome" (which has a J sound at the start). I've fixed both. The Wednesday Island 20:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Argh. I'm not normally one for saying this, but you've blurred too many lines with this. I'm expanding it a little so that it doesn't need such awkward wording as "the operating systems Linux and Solaris". Chris Cunningham 13:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind my saying, as an English professor, that there is absolutely nothing about the noun phrase "the operating systems Linux and Solaris" that is even slightly awkward. It's absolutely standard English. Zenomax (talk) 07:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

gnome-screenshot article constantly gets deleted!!! :x

I have started gnome-screenshot article as part of the original GNOME article. I faces problems with some bots or user(s) who are constantly deleting the article.please do watch gnome-screenshot page for any vandalisation and deletion.

while i found no one is arguing over ksnapshot,why GNOME gnome-screenshot ? pls do notice this behaviour.

If you want to know who's been deleting your article, you should check the logs; it looks like it was speedy-deleted (I can't see why: it's no worse than any other stub as far as I can see). The Wednesday Island 13:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


OMG!the article is still there!those ppl are always doing this speedy deletion on gnome-screenshot .i tried "hang" option and explained.then after i came back i saw the article was again deleted :-( this type of behaviour is really bad.but as of now the article is there.do keep a watch on the article-GNOME users @tleast.Thank You Praka123 08:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Aero Glass Theme

Although I'm no Windows fan, I think that the Aero interface is some nice eye candy. Where can I get the theme in the screenshot? Thanks. Please reply in my here and in my talk page. Peteturtle 16:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Gnome Under Windows

It seems some port of Gnome to Windows 7 years ago has dissapeared into thin air!

[4]

What happened to it's website [5]

A screenshot found here: http://www.tweakers.net/ext/i.dsp/976458423.gif

Criticism?

How about a small part about what is commonly criticized about GNOME? E.g. that options are hidden to simpify the menus, or that ideas are copied from OSX?

If you can find reliable sources for each criticism, write away! Marnanel 04:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
If you have criticisms about the Look and fell, put them in the GNOME#Look and feel section (with references). If you have criticisms about the architecture, put them in the GNOME#Architecture section (with references). Etc. Thanks. Gronky 08:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
If you, happenstance find criticism of lack-of-documentation, then add it to the future section Documentation, describing the imaginary documentation of Gnome. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

future of gnome-include this too

future of GNOME and an envisioned GNOME 3.0 .also the critisisms.

Merger proposed (Goobox)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There was no consensus to merge. I will redirect the article to List of GNOME applications. --B. Wolterding 17:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I propose to merge the content of Goobox into here, since the notability of that article has been questioned. Actually, no indendent coverage for Goobox is cited, which would be required for a separate article. However, it may be appropriate to merge a short description into here.

Please add your comments below. Proposed as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 17:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Conditionally Against – It would not seem that Goobox is part of GNOME, and it isn’t notable, so I see no reason for the mention at all. It makes sense to mention API bindings, software that forms the basis of GNOME, and possibly some notable software that runs on top of GNOME, but this is none of the above; additionally, the article already makes note of Rhythmbox and Sound Juicer, which both together and separately exceed Goobox's capabilities. I would propose that Goobox be deleted, instead. —Mike Trausch Fd0man•Talk to me 19:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Merge with GNOME - detailing software features is always a worthy endeavor if done well. Merge and allow the GNOME editors to see if they can salvage the stub, if not, let them decide to delete it after further discussion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.253.125 (talk • contribs)
Against merge with GNOME: Goobox should not be inside the gnome article --NeutralPoint 00:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"GNOME team"

A bunch of articles on GNOME programs list the maintainer as "GNOME team". Why is this? It doesn't seem to add any useful information (obviously GNOME programs would be maintained by a GNOME team), especially where the number of maintainers is small. (WP:COI notice: I am a GNOME maintainer.) Marnanel 04:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Japanese/2.13 Screenshot

It would be cool to get an updated screenshot of the Japanese desktop, now that Pango supports vertical scripts, and the user has vertical panels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.89.149 (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Subprojects of Gnome

I wouldn't really consider gimp to be a sub project of gnome, especially as it was around first, maybe it should be removed from the list? Jmsbwtr (talk) 17:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Or the section could be renamed to make GIMP's inclusion sensible - but I can't think of good word to describe GIMP's close, but distinct, relationship with GNOME. --Gronky (talk) 17:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It should just be removed. There are lots of GTK-based apps which enjoy the GIMP's current relationship with the project while being separate. We can surely add a link to the GIMP elsewhere if needed, but it doesn't need mentioned there. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I think GIMP is special because it pre-dated GNOME, provided some of the foundations, and yet 10 years later it still stays at arms length, having few or no dependencies on GNOME. It's also something that GNOME has that other free software desktops haven't come close to. But it's no huge deal either way. --Gronky (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Main Image

2.22 is out. 38+ days ago. Why is the image for gnome on the main page still 2.20? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.147.229 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 20 April 2008

Probably because switching every single image on every release of every software-related Wikipedia page would be pretty much impossible.
It's not that important that the image is the latest version, unless some notable changes to the looks were made.
Mabye they were and I'm missing something? Darkuranium (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). ffm 19:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I've been the guy uploading the images as releases come out, taking them from the release notes. Unfortunately, the latest notes (http://library.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/2.22/) don't have a good image to use. juancnuno (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Any reason why not to add a link to gnome-look in the "external links" section? I did and was accused of spamming lol!?!! -Abhishek (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be an official site, or particularly relevant to GNOME other than it provides themes for it. ~~ [Jam][talk] 09:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

K -Abhishek (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Where does the pronunciation used in this article come from? I couldn't find any mention on http://gnome.org, and a Google search only returns debates on forums. I suppose that one could assume it from the pronunciation of GNU, but is there anything more substantial? —Frungi (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I would guess that Gnome is pronounced differently all over the world depending on which local dialect is spoken. I don't think that this part makes much sense. -- 84.170.65.158 (talk) 09:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Why turn the "Releases" table into a paragraph?

Because it seems to me that the table in the "Releases" section is a good example of the kind of case where Wikipedia style cautions, "a list style may be preferable to a long sequence within a sentence. . . " (Wikipedia:Embedded list), I removed a flag requesting that it be translated to prose and also a "ToDo" item at the head of the talk page making the same request. The desire to twist and punch this perfectly clear table into a clumsy paragraph seems misguided to me. Sometimes, as in this case, when information is of a limited, regular, and repetitive sort, tables are more lucid than paragraphs and easier to extract relevant information from. Zenomax (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Add or expose factoid request: What's GNOME programmed in?

Thanks --Bcjordan (talk) 03:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Mostly in C, but also in a lot of other language (since several language bindings exist). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.137.209.67 (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Gnome Controversy?

What i kinda miss is a Gnome Controversy section. I use gnome on my desktop but not because i like it but because it's currently the "best" (more like the least worst) option there is. KDE is still (4.3) not stable and mature enough to be my default DE of choice.

Another thing i miss is people have complained a lot about gnome's "idiotic" behavior to have as little settings as possible. Or even the part where Linus Torvalds calls them interface nazis... (with the note that since KDE 4 is released he is also using Gnome till KDE is usable again)

And where is the part that gnome nearly got forked? Anyone remembers GoneME? Just one note about GoneME is in the 2.6 version line under releases.

So please tell the full Gnome story (with the bad sides included)! The current Gnome article on wikipedia makes gnome sound like an awesome DE but it seems to miss all the opinions against it. The fact that is it the biggest right now is because KDE screwed KDE 4 a lot and is just now making it work good again. So, Gnome might be the most used DE but hardly because it's the best one.. far from it.. just the best out of worse options. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.125.249.96 (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You/he could just use XFCE instead, it's quite the spectacle now. 24.241.229.253 (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

List of distributions

I added a table containing a list of distributions see here, but it was reverted by Thumperward. The reason given was "...this article doesn't need more lists of trivia, and this information should be given on the list of linux distributions page" (in reference to the box at the top). However, although the KDE article doesn't have such a list, the Xfce article does, and I think that it should be kept as it is useful for those looking for a Linux distribution with GNOME. Does anybody else think that it should be kept? If not, I wont add it. 0L1 Talk Contribs 18:11 27 10 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem too useful to me, given that a whole lot of distributions support it. It's really nothing unique or interesting about a distro. Twinxor t 20:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I still think that it is worth mentioning, even if only the popular distributions that have it are mentioned e.g. openSUSE, ubuntu and Fedora Core. 0L1 Talk Contribs 21:44 27 10 2006 (UTC)
A sentence mentioning the most influential GNOME users might make sense. Start up List of operating systems using GNOME if a bigger list is really needed -- it clutters up this article badly. Twinxor t 22:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC).
I'll create that article now. I just realised that there is a brief mention of Ubuntu and Fedora Core in the article in the Platforms section. 0L1 Talk Contribs 10:47 28 10 2006 (UTC)

One distro that offers few choices with full support, like openSUSE, should not be left out, or article should point to the list Comparison of Linux distributions without naming any notable distros. openSUSE has GNOME fully supported for the lifetime of each release with its own Live CD, as you can see on download page, and the GNOME Live CD of openSUSE is equivalent in features with the Ubuntu Live CD. --Simon321 (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

GNOME Shell

GNOME Shell is included within GNOME 3 by default, and thus, GNOME 3 is being delayed due to possible feature issues in the software. Though whether or not that is the true reason for the delay, it is a possibility due to the fact that once installed in Ubuntu 9.10, GNOME Shell is highly unusable, especially with a dock without a GNOME Menu widget (This means, only AWN (With Cairo Menu) and Cairo Dock are usable due to their menu systems. GNOME Do's docky is not, even though it has been suggested to have a GNOME Menu Widget.) GNOME Shell also has no ALT+TAB Interface yet, I have tried alt+tab in GNOME Shell myself, it simply does not work. Since GNOME Shell uses gnome-shell --replace and comes with mutter, compiz is incompatible with it. You also cannot specify the default number of desktops/workspaces in GNOME Shell, and furthermore, adding more than 2 workspaces makes the workspaces look like they are on more than one row, which they definitely are not. Also, using ALT+F2 works, but doesn't give application suggestions like the gnome panel version. Also, GNOME Panel cannot run while GNOME Shell is running. There is no applet system yet for GNOME Shell either, so no precious weather in the panel up top, you would have to instead rely on gdesklets for that. This is all original research, so you cannot add this to the article. Try out GNOME Shell on ubuntu yourself if you have doubts though. 24.241.229.253 (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see something about gnome-shell too! It is the killer "innovation" for gnome 3 right? If KDE mixes the panel and the desktop, I guess it's HIG-compliant to mix the window manager and the panel... *shrug* 120.28.90.118 (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't even know what HIG stands for. Oh well. 24.241.229.253 (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Gnome 3.0 looks like it will drive a lot of dedicated users to another desktop. Changing the user interface is very foolish. I am very depressed about this and do not know what to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.19.28 (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Though this is not a forum, it would be wise to go to the mailing lists of GNOME to see if you can try to persuade them. However, I doubt you'll do much good, seeing as they will tell everyone that it is in alpha (When they plan to release it this year in September...) and that they should wait. To be honest, I plan to use xfce real soon, mainly when Ubuntu 10.04 comes out. Since it is possible that 10.10 will have GNOME 3 by default. 24.241.229.253 (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

GNOME on Microsoft windows

I noticed the platform line does not contain Microsoft Windows; however, you can run it on Microsoft Windows. Though I do not have a source. 24.241.229.253 (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"See also" Dilemma

I noticed that under the "See also" section there is a link to Ubuntu. Now despite popular belief (sarcasm), Ubuntu is not the only *nix system to use the GNOME as default. There is already a link to the comparison of Linux distributions, so therefor the independent link to Ubuntu is unneeded.

I feel it should either be removed, or I'll add a link to every other distribution in order to be equally fair. Since I doubt anyone wants the latter, I will take the liberty to remove the link to Ubuntu under the "See also" section, since you can reach the same article by clicking the link in the "Usage" section just above it. Rabbitcore (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer review imminent

I would like to send this article over for peer review. I performed a copy edit myself, and I hope to push this to FA in the near future (this is a goal of WP:LINUX). Is there anything people want to add or clean up? I will also be looking at the overall structure and quality of the article before submitting it to peer review. Please leave your comments here. Thanks! –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 20:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Was a peer review completed? Have you considered reviewing the good article criteria and getting the article ready for GA nomination? --Pnm (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I made some structural edits to the release history and had two suggestions relating to the release gallery:
  • Provide in the caption a highlight from each release
  • Add an entry for the upcoming 3.0 release (maybe the existing screenshot can just be moved).
Also, how about combining the numerous citations to GNOME press releases (in the release table) to one citation that points to http://www.gnome.org/press/releases/ ? Having so many makes the references section more difficult to use, and as primary sources, those citations aren't especially important.
--Pnm (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips. I was unexpectedly away from Wikipedia through most of December and missed all of this. I closed the review and am addressing those comments as well as comments from the first review that I feel are not addressed in the current article. I will add yours to my list, and I welcome your contributions in improving the article. I think the point about consolidating the reflist with respect to release notes is a great point. I'll be out of town over the weekend but hopefully start chipping away at it when I get back. I do need to incorporate the GA criteria into the whole revision process and I'll be looking at that carefully next week, as well. Thanks, again! Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 21:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'd be happy to do some more editing. I had another observation, too. (I'm not an expert on the subject, so maybe you can help implement it.) The article should more directly address the competitive relationship with KDE. The history should be from the context of GNOME and explain "why" things happened the way they did. Not all the detail needs to be here, so refactoring this section and History_of_free_software#Desktop might help. --Pnm (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Release date of GNOME 3

It is stated in the Gnome 3.0 section that it is to be released on March 2011, however, the GNOME Shell article states that it is to be released on April 2011, that same date (April 2011) is the one announced on gnome.org as the release date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plaga701 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, updating the article per http://library.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/2.32/#rnlookingforward. –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 01:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Windowing System

what is the windowing system of GNOME?

at the begining of the article it says that GNOME is a desktop environment and that it runs on top of the operating system. and in the X Window System article it is said that "X Window System" is part of the desktop environment. therefore, does GNOME "include" "X Window System"? or it has a free software alternative to X Window system?

for a desktop environment, isn't it awkward to not mention the windowing system?

--78.167.48.99 (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

References to changelogs

Can the section referencing changelogs be made more compact? I hardly see a reason to list them all for each minor version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.49.18.203 (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

GNOME 3 has been released!

GNOME 3 is now released, so you should consider updating the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.119.78 (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Controversy over GNOME v3.0

While this section could be of value to the article, currently it does not list enough variance in point of view to be fair and encyclopaedic, simply listing two quotes from Linus Torvalds and Stephen Ewen without any rebuttals and supporting arguments from Gnome 3 supporters, or even more varied complaints from its detractors. As it stands, it does not supply enough information or sourcing to be truly informative. Hamish Paul Wilson (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I added a response to some of the criticisms by GNOME designer William Jon McCann to the article. Hamish Paul Wilson (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I have further expanded it to include information about the Fallback interface and additional tweaking that can be done to restore a Gnome 2.x like desktop. What we need now is some quotes and information from Gnome Shell users who actually do enjoy the shell. Hamish Paul Wilson (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I found some quotes from a article from The Regester reviewing Fedora 15 which gave some interesting points about the Shell, so I added them to the section. I have also removed the Neutrality tag, as I feel the section, while still needing expansion, can stand on its own now thanks to the additions I have made. Hamish Paul Wilson (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Even though more information over the controversy has been added, it still leaves the reader wondering what's the controversy all about. Can more information be added about the specifics of GNOME 3 that is causing the controversy? The section will have added encyclopedic value if the reasons for the disagreements of GNOME 3 are listed. -- Joel M.Chat ✐ 16:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Should esr's comments about GNOME 3 (and Unity) as a "horrifying clusterfuck"[6] "emphasizing slick appearance over function, stripping control away from the user in the name of “simplification”"[7]; and GNOME 3 Fallback Mode as a "crippled emulation"[8] be included? -- Jeandré, 2011-11-26t04:59z

GNOME v.X.Y

Where does this v. come from? There is no single v. in release announcements and I didn't ever come over any definition of v. as The One True Way of writing version info. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Pronounciation

There has been some debate over how to pronounce GNOME. I put forward that it should be /noʊm/ (and then, sometimes pronounced /ɡˈnoʊm/) by popular choice. The videos on the GNOME3 website itself call the environment /noʊm/ (http://gnome3.org)

If we are looking for an "official announcement", I imagine we can take both their YouTube page, and their flagship product page as evidence.

173.237.123.193 (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)enmand

I would say that the hard 'g' is well established, and it's questionable whether press material can decide to change this, especially with a community project. On the other hand, it's questionable whether there's a 'proper' pronunciation at all - it's simply the way it is more commonly said (including by the project founders). Given that this is threatening to turn into an edit war (yikes!) I'd support either removing the pronunciation guide altogether, or giving the two pronunciations equal footing.
Incidentally, I would imagine English speakers are far more likely call it /noʊm/, thanks to the fairy. Languages without this word would be unlikely to even think to use a silent 'g'. This could hint at why this is such controversy: in some localizations noʊm may be overwhelmingly popular, while outside these places it may be rare. —WOFall (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe the only authority on question of proper pronounciation of the term is the primary source. While I generally call it [gnom], as it is typical in Russian communities, I think there is no sense to include any variants apart of the official one. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Gnome proposal

I've proposed the creation of WikiProject Gnome. Please comment. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

past release image for Gnome 2.6

In Past releases section, the second image is described as GNOME 2.6, March 2004. I am pretty sure that this is neither Gnome 2.6 nor released in 2004. It could be Gnome 1.6 though in some years that I am not sure of. Saeed (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think it isn't Gnome 2.6? The screenshot appears to include Nautilus in spatial mode, which was introduced with 2.6, so I don't see how it can be an earlier version. VoluntarySlave (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The image was taken from the GNOME 2.6 release notes and I consider the release notes to be a relatively reliable source for GNOME related information. Someone recently changed the version number in the description of the screenshot in the article, which I have reverted to 2.6. Kat (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Applications

May be it would be a good idea to create a section with a list (or table) of official applications? Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The list already exists at list of GNOME applications, one of the Google Code-in students should be updating it over the next few days. Kat (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight of Community section

The GNOME Project is mainly known for GNOME desktop environment. I think that community projects should be moved to the separate article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

There's not enough coverage in secondary sources for a separate article. Why not reduce it to a paragraph, get rid of the subsections, and move the section to the end (before the release history)? --Pnm (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
There's even a separate article on GUADEC! I believe the new article should be called The GNOME Project (though it's a question to be further discussed), and it should cover the community, the people behind Gnome and so on. I object the idea of keeping the community info in GNOME article, as it is currently a good article about software, and the side info will just blur it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I didn't notice GUADEC had an article. As to now it's unreferenced, though, so it doesn't address my concern. GNOME Project or The GNOME Project isn't a bad idea, but I suggest incubating the content in a section of GNOME until it's referenced enough to satisfy WP:N. – Pnm (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't like this approach. If the GNOME community satisfy WP:N, there should be an article. If not - there shouldn't. But in any case it shouldn't litter the article about the GNOME software. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that an open-source project's structure and community efforts are relevant to encyclopedic coverage of the software, so if it the topic doesn't meet WP:N it can still be covered here. In the same way, a non-notable software company could have a reasonable amount of encyclopedic coverage in an article about its one notable product. It wouldn't be undue weight or seem like litter if it were just a short paragraph. – Pnm (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
A way better place would be GNOME Foundation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I agree. – Pnm (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

Gnome forks list

Should we add a list of forks and what was forked to improve gnome-shell? I would suggest that this page links to a new wiki page that contains them. Wei2912 (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't think there are enough notable forks for a list or enough forks for list of non-notable forks. See WP:LSC for details. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I can only think of one really notable GNOME fork, and the GNOME-Shell related projects don't seem notable enough, alone or in a group, to warrant any such list. - SudoGhost 21:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
What about Cinnamon (user interface)? It's proving to be quite popular already... CodeCat (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
It can be adequately described in prose, I don't think a list is required. - SudoGhost 07:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, we can add MATE and Cinnamon, the most notable forks. I'm actually a fan of cinnamon as its proving to be more functionable as gnome 2 (a great feat). Wei2912 (talk) 08:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
No way. MATE is sitting on the edge of notability: no proper reviews despite being released n Linux Mint three months ago. Cinnamon (user interface) is not yet released, and again no reviews. Both articles don't comply with WP:NSOFT and the passing WP:GNG is also questionable. We should wait quite a bit before compiling any lists, just to se whether the projects would actually catch up. It is the same reason why this article still hangs between GNOME 2 and GNOME 3. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Cinnamon (user interface) has been released to 1.2, a version considered as stable as there is no minor build number.

Also, Cinnamon complies with WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG as it meets the following criteria: The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. References that cite trivia do not fulfill this requirement. See following section for more information.

Many such reviews exist (with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.): http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/mints-cinnamon-the-future-of-the-linux-desktop-review/10246 http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/12/cinnamon-project-keeps-gnome-2-style-desktop-alive/

Wei2912 (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. But you can't compile the list of one entry. And it is still not a very good idea to spawn these things prematurely. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that a list isn't needed. A list is usually created when there are so many items that each item cannot reasonably be described in prose, and at this point I'm not even sure Cinnamon warrants that (at least in regards to this article). - SudoGhost 01:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I wasn't thinking of a list now. I was thinking of having a section in this page for Cinnamon and linking it to the main article. Since there are only 1 notable fork, a list is useless for now. Sorry for misconceptions, I'm still a newbie to wikipedia. Wei2912 (talk) 11:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Dramatically wrong approach. The section in this article can only be grounded by merging Cinnamon into GNOME. Cinnamon is a separate fork, which was neither endorsed nor considered a part of GNOME project, so unless it is absolutely unavoidable, it shouldn't be here. The wikilink in "See also" section is a maximum of sane mention. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, we can close this topic now. Thanks for the info that the link is in "See also". Wei2912 (talk) 08:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:GNOME/Archive_1&oldid=1239991667"