Talk:GNOME/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 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)


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:
Visual editor UI on Debian.png
Fedora Core:
Java Desktop System
Sun microsystems java desktop.png
Red Hat Enterprise Linux
Solaris 10
[[image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|250px]]
Ubuntu 5.04:
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 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 --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)


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)


"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)


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)

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 —, which the MediaWiki engine automatically converts into a numeric entity in the rendered HTML. The numeric entities, — and —, 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)


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 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. - 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 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...) - 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 ? 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. - 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (, 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 "GNOME desktop" and 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 ( 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 (talkcontribs) 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 -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 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 — and – entities are used instead. ptkfgs 20:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


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". ptkfgs 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: . 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 (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


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)


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 VivekTalk!! 17:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


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 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!


What happened to it's website [3]

A screenshot found here:


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 Fd0manTalk 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 (talkcontribs)
Against merge with GNOME: Goobox should not be inside the gnome article --NeutralPoint 00:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems that we do not have consensus to merge the article into GNOME; what about this solution as a compromise: Redirect the Goobox article to List of GNOME applications, from where it is linked, and leave it to editors to merge any content there of that is desired? --B. Wolterding 07:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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

"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 (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 (talkcontribs) 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 ( don't have a good image to use. juancnuno (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

External link to ?

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)


Where does the pronunciation used in this article come from? I couldn't find any mention on, 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. -- (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 (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 (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You/he could just use XFCE instead, it's quite the spectacle now. (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 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. (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* (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't even know what HIG stands for. Oh well. (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 (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. (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. (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 ? 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 as the release date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plaga701 (talkcontribs) 02:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, updating the article per –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?

-- (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 (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 (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"[4] "emphasizing slick appearance over function, stripping control away from the user in the name of “simplification”"[5]; and GNOME 3 Fallback Mode as a "crippled emulation"[6] be included? -- Jeandré, 2011-11-26t04:59z


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)


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

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


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)
  • I vote for that Controversy over GNOME 3 keep being a separate article, separating Controversy articles from the main is customary according to WP standards. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 10:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

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.):

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)