Jump to content

Talk:GNOME/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Add GNOME contervorsy? (if accepted please add to the To-do list)

I'm not so sure about adding this to the To-do list, please state if you oppose or accept. Thanks. Wei2912 (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Which one do you mean? Controversy over GNOME 3? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Didn't know of that article, thanks for telling me. Maybe we should try to improve on that article? Wei2912 (talk) 09:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
It was split from this article (see this archived discussion) nearly as it was. I only added some structure, and since then several editors updated "Outcome" section to reflect latest news. Feel free to improve it, but keep in mind that the events are very much of current buzz, and we are supposed to write something of historical importance. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Features shouldn't just be comparisons

Has anyone else noticed that the Features heading is almost entirely comparisons of Gnome 3 to Gnome 2? If you come into the article knowing very little about Gnome (2 or 3), the part that should be the most enlightening - what is it? how does it compare to other popular ones, like the Windows shell or the OS X shell? - is instead mostly unhelpful trivia. In an otherwise good article, I think this is the biggest weakness, and I hope some work is put into it now that Gnome 3 is maturing enough to stand on its own without comparison to its predecessor; it's time to put forward what its must important features are, both ones that should be standard everywhere and ones that are revolutionary, with a short "Differences from Gnome 2" section at the end to explain the historical changes. Foxyshadis(talk) 09:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually it isn't. In fact it completely describes GNOME 2 with some comments about GNOME 3 added. I'm waiting for GNOME 3.4 and some finite outcome of Controversy over GNOME 3 to continue editing this article, as we are now short of objective historical judgment on the facts. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

3rd march 1999?

Hello, how is this date in the side-box-list arrived at please? Is there a cite for that particular date? thank you.--31.110.78.43 (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation of GNOME

For those interested in recent reverts (initial edit, revert 1, revert 2 and revert 3): there was a thread back in 2011. Though short, it resulted in revision that lasted pretty long, so the question may be worth discussion before any changes are committed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Restructuring the entire article (original version)

  1. GNOME is not a desktop environment and a graphical user interface (GUI), but only the first
  2. there are the GNOME Core Applications
    1. GNOME Shell, introduced with GNOME 3.0, is/bears/implements the GUI, replaces GNOME Panel, and is technically an plugin to Mutter.
    2. GNOME Files, the file browser, formerly known as Nautilus
    3. GNOME Software, introduced with 3.10, to browse, install and update software packages, (an adaptation of the Ubuntu Software Center to the GNOME 3 design?)
    4. GNOME Disks (formerly Palimpsests), hard disc partitioning, etc.
    5. GNOME Maps: https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Maps/Roadmap
    6. GNOME Disk Usage Analyzer (formerly Baobab)
    7. GNOME System Monitor
    8. GNOME Web, formerly called Epiphany
    9. GNOME Calendar
    10. GNOME Notes, formerly Bijiben
    11. GNOME Music
    12. GNOME Photos together with Sushi (software) will replace Eye of GNOME (separately there are gThumb, F-Spot, Viewnior, and others more)
    13. gnome-screenshot
  3. there is of course the "GNOME Platform Architecture", e.g.
    1. GTK+, Clutter, GLib, GNOME Keyring, etc.
  4. and there is a ton of GTK+-based software, which is being developed by a third party, e.g.
    1. Anjuta
    2. Puddletag, Audacious
    3. Inkscape, GIMP, Audacity, Brasero, etc.
    4. Abiword, Gnumeric, Dia, Evince, etc.

At the time of this writing (2014-02-17), Blogs document GNOME the best, e.g.

There is of course, official informations, e.g.

ScotXW (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

In general I agree but IMO rather than adding lists with screenshots to this article, applying those changes to List of GNOME applications makes more sense. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

The article currently has this sentence: " Currently only GNU/Linux officially supports GNOME from version 3.0 onwards however other operating systems are providing unofficial builds and are working on achieving full GNOME 3 compatibility." Obviously this is untrue: GNU/Linux doesn't "support" GNOME, much less "officially support" GNOME. GNOME runs on GNU/Linux. That's all there is to it. If you can find some statement that the GNOME developers only support GNU/Linux, fine, but that's the only direction that relationship can work in. Also, for what it's worth, OpenBSD right now has GNOME 3.10 in the ports tree (and very soon 3.12) and frankly I am getting a better experience with that than on Debian GNU/Linux... 66.223.171.52 (talk) 08:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and the article also contains the section "Portability_and_Compatibility" with a naked link: https://wiki.gnome.org/PortabilityMatrix Additionally there could be a link into somebody's blog stating, that GNOME 3.12 builds and works on FreeBSD and OpenBSD (I think). Could also work on the other BSDs. And I think it also states, that GNOME works on Windows. User:ScotXWt@lk 17:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I added that sentence. Sorry about the inaccuracy. What I was trying to get at was that GNU/Linux seems to have more provision for shell than OS's so far. See this link: http://www.freebsd.org/gnome/ But it was worded poorly and if what you say about 3.12 and openbsd is true then it is wrong as well. I'll scratch the sentence. Apologies again. -- Charlesb95 (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok the section now reads like this: "GNOME runs on the X Window System and as of GNOME 3.10 also on Wayland.[18] Current versions of GNOME are available in most Linux distributions either as the default desktop environment or as an installable option. GNOME 2 is available on Solaris since the Solaris Express 10/04 release and builds of GNOME 2 and GNOME 3 are available in the ports trees of most BSDs.[19]]" I hope that's an improvement. -- Charlesb95 (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

GNOME Office

We had this discussion several times already and I will not reiterate everything for a WP user who is apparently too lazy to look for the discussions himself.

Long story short: The so-called GNOME Office “website” only mentions “a bunch of GNOME/Gtk applications that are useful in an office enviroment”. There were talks in the past to create a GNOME Office suite but it never materialized. That’s it. [EDIT: Even the LWM reference allegedly confirming the existence proves that: “The following applications […] have expressed the desire to be part of GNOME Office”. Yes, they expressed desire but nothing more. You should read more than just the first line of a reference…]

I will revert this change one more time. Wikipedia is not the place for imaginary office suites. I will report any further attempt to add GNOME Office here again. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The article accurately notes the usage of the term GNOME Office, and I added sources backing up the usage of this name and its meaning. The fact that there is no single piece of software called "GNOME Office" has nothing to do with another fact, that several unrelated apps are collectively referred to as "GNOME Office". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Applications like, for example, Inkscape are not being referred as being part of GNOME Office by any group of relevant size, especially not by them. They are not even being developed by GNOME and have therefore no place here. One reference you give for “collectively called GNOME Office” is GNOME’s own website that only contains the “a bunch of GNOME/Gtk applications” quote I mentioned earlier. The other two references date back from 2001! The GNOME Project does develop a few applications that they themselves refer to as “Productivity Tools” in the git web front-end. Of those “GNOME Office” applications, only Gnumeric is part of them.
PS: For “a bunch of GNOME/Gtk applications that are useful in an office enviroment” we already have List of GNOME applications#Office_software. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Abiword disagrees with you. Multiple secondary sources disagree with you: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and Softpedia even provides "GNOME Office" download. In fact, judging on sources I am unsure whether the view that Abiword is not a part of GNOME Office is spread enough to be worth mention. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Please get this into your head: GNOME itself does not claim that there is a GNOME Office! Their Wiki only lists “a bunch of GNOME/Gtk applications that are useful in an office enviroment”! Not even the AbiWord announcement from almost 10 years ago claims to be part of GNOME Office and neither does their own info page. What you think is a proof, is just a reference to the goffice charting library, not an office suite. AbiWord’s development is not even hosted on gnome.org. AbiWord is entirely separate from the Gnome project.
Guess what: Sometimes there are people who are wrong on the internet. There are plenty of websites that claim that the earth is hollow, roughly 5000 years old, etc. Just like you they either confuse the goffice charting library with an office suite or can't comprehend that a wiki page hosted on gnome.org listing “a bunch of GNOME/Gtk applications that are useful in an office enviroment” does not equal an office suite.
In case of the old Fedora 12 link, you once again obviously didn't even bother to read it: “Although GNOME does not have an office suite specifically designed for it, a number of office applications optimized for GNOME are available.” Also the office in “GNOME office applications” is lower case which means it is not used as name. Considering that you claim to speak English at a near-native level, I'm beginning to think you are trolling on purpose.
It's revealing that you obviously can't find a single first party GNOME Office reference from this decade! If the involved first parties do not claim to be part of GNOME Office, why should the 3rd parties be right? If you only got a handful of references from the last decade, how is that proof sometimes a few of totally unrelated applications are referred to as GNOME Office?
As I already wrote: We have List of GNOME applications#Office_software for software not developed by The GNOME Project but integrating well into GNOME. This article is about software by the Gnome project and nothing else. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I am amazed thar you argue against statements "GNOME doesn't include a unified office suite" and "a set of loosely coupled office applications, sometimes collectively called GNOME Office" by saying "If the involved first parties do not claim to be part of GNOME Office, why should the 3rd parties be right?". The article doesn't claim there is or ever was any office suite named "GNOME Office", it merely mentions that a set of applications are sometimes called by this name. This information is relevant to this article because these applciations, although most of them being DE-agnostic, are attributed to GNOME by this collective name. But personal attacks are more interesting then reading, aren't they? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Inkscape is not loosely coupled to AbiWord (both use GTK, that's it) and nobody in this entire decade (except you) calls AbiWord+Inkscape GNOME Office. The only loose coupling is that AbiWord uses the stand-alone goffice charting library from Gnumeric. Nothing else that's in active development uses that library.
Of all applications wrongfully attributed to GNOME Office by you, only a handful are even developed within the Gnome project and even less are in active development (Dia, for example, is apparently dead). Grisbi and HomeBank are not even mentioned on the gnome.org page. No idea where they come from.
I'm sorry if you thought that I was attacking you. I simply trying to made it clear that your claims are wrong and that even the references you yourself posted to not support your claim once one reads past the first line.
But yes, considering that there were talks about a GNOME Office almost 15 years ago (even though nothing resulted out of those talks), I'll move that historic information into the History section where it belongs. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you about Inkscape. If you looked through edit history, you would know that the whole list was put into this section by ScotXW, not me. In fact my involvement with this section only boils down to prosifying, so you have chosen wrong person to address your criticism.
Obviously I disagree with you about Abiword – the link I gave unambiguasly links Abiword with GNOME Office: "GNOME-Office integration is improved every release." Note, the link points to the homepage of GNOME Office, not the goffice library. This means that:
  1. at least as of 2.4.0 Abiword was considering itself a part of GNOME Office,
  2. homepage of GNOME Office existed,
  3. it claimed that GNOME Office itself already existed.
There are more links at abisource.com to support this claim, eg. this GUADEC paper. There is even GNOME Office 1.0 release announcement, unambiguously stating that Abiword is part of GNOME Office.
This makes GNOME Office proper subject of encyclopedic coverage. Given that now the talks of GNOME Office dissolved completely, I accept the mention in GNOME § History as the bare minimum of WP:DUE compliance, although I will edit the mention to include the information about Abiword and GNOME-DB from the links in this thread. I will also include this information in Abiword article, once I find enough material to add a "History" section there. Hope you are OK with that. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, mentioning it in the history section is just fine, even though I find it strange that the AbiSource reference and the archived gnome.org reference aren't even sure if there is an office suite. The old AbiSource reference claims so by announcing 1.0 but Gnome's own reference just has two separate downloads and no "GNOME Office 1.0"…
And yes, I noticed ScotXW’s involvement too late. A few weeks ago I noticed an edit in my watchlist (can't remember the article) reverting edits by ScotXW with the comment that he has apparently been banned from another language’s Wikipedia for spamming articles. Didn't check whether this is true or not but I wouldn't be surprised after this. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

From your comments it seems that you were expecting GNOME Office to be available as a single package, while the project itself regarded itself as a set of related applications with coordinated development cycles, just like GNOME itself. They planned combined installer for Windows, but it wasn't high on priorities and was never done. Actually, the mailing list thread includes some discussion of the single download option back in the days GNOME Office 1.2 was forthcomming. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not understand the hostility against the MENTIONING of the distinct software Abiword, etc. TOGETHER. The point is, that if somebody would like to use GTK+-applications "for office stuff", they can, because there is software to get these things done. Why would they have to be released as a single package? I do not get, why this argument be so strong. And anyway, I would rather thank Czarkoff for investing the time and effort to get the references and phrasing GNOME Office in a way, that is certainly correct in the view of most people (besides the guys with the aluminum hats of course, but and, this is the Wikipedia and an article about GNOME. Probably they'll pop-up sooner or later as well with some very "strong" arguments. User:ScotXWt@lk 08:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The abstraction level of that paragraph is hilariously wrong for an encyclopedia article about GNOME. "15 years ago there was brief talk about something that never happened." 85.76.97.202 (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

GNOME next

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

  1. Release announcements on gnome.org list changes since prevoius stable version.
  2. Table entry consisting solely of future release version number and TBA is useless at best, and violates WP:CRYSTAL for nothing.
— Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
See it as an invitation. Source for the diffs between GNOME-package 3.13.1 and 3.13.2 e.g.: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/ftp-release-list/2014-May/thread.html#00119 . GLib has its own page, so do GTK+ and some of the applications, e.g. GNOME Files. What changes are noteworthy for the GNOME page?
Are there release notes for GNOME 3.12 that mention more extensively the differences between 3.12 and 3.10? User:ScotXWt@lk 18:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Did you ever notice WP:NOTNEWS? And what about WP:NOTCHANGELOG? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Restructuring the entire article

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

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

What about moving the History section before a bunch of minimally relevant chemistry applications appear? I agree with the overall structure of sections and content, but I fail to grasp the reasoning behind their order. --Sisgeo (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes the history-section contains good stuff, sometimes it does not. Anyway, when I read an article about software, I am usually interested in the software architecture, workings, etc. and not in the history. Hence, I don't see why the history should come first. But that is my opinion. User:ScotXWt@lk 17:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
"Design" and "Software architecture and components" are two ways to say the same thing. These sections should be merged. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not totally sure what you were trying to do here [9] but you removed this talk page's header so I've added it back. Also note that you should not generally be removing your own posts after someone has replied to them except in exceptional cases like your post was a copyvio and even then you should generally keep the replies. Nil Einne (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
In this case, "design" equals for me geometry, button sizes, colors, etc., while "software architecture" describes (at various zoom-levels) how the different components interact with one another. Most WP articles about software are shit, they merely list "features" instead of explaining this. For examples this picture here: https://git.gnome.org/browse/gtk-web/plain/images/architecture.svg illustrates software architecture on a very high level. This: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yp99PzEORDI/T1no3lrZlCI/AAAAAAAAABI/RV7ODuT6qlw/s1600/EGL-Mesa-Wayland-arch.png is more detailed. One can argue about the level of details for a good WP article, but a mere feature list, is (or rather should be) an insult to any encyclopedia.
As you can see e.g. here: Talk:GNOME_Shell#Questions_to_improve_article_quality_2014, one problem I see, is a missing term for what the GNOME Shell actually is. If you call it a GUI, how do you distinguish it from the GUI that any software with a graphical interface features? Some GNOME and KDE developers call it a UX (for "User Experience"). This should have been sorted out years ago in an encyclopedia, and I wonder why it wasn't. Too much bullying around? I'll stick around for a while longer, but eventually ... User:ScotXWt@lk 10:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree about necessity to expand the lists that have plagued this article. Still, I see a big WP:verifiability problem with doing so: it is difficult to find reliable sources that cover the look&feel aspect of GNOME in detail, while information based on blogs and forum threads (way more specific and detail-rich) neither is allowed by Wikipedia rules, nor will survive long enough to be worth spending time writing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't reject "verifiability" per se, but I dislike how it is used to create the dictatorship of online or print media. If only blogs write about some stuff, it is very easy to claim it is not noteworthy. Without using one's brain, this could harm the Wikipedia. A concrete problem I see, as I already wrote, is the discrimination between GUI (any graphical program has one) and UX (i.e. GNOME Shell, KDE Plasma, Mac OS X corespondent, etc. User:ScotXWt@lk 18:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, most ways of "using one's brain" to circumvent WP:V harm Wikipedia much more. That is basically the only reason WP:V exists. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
A strong claim. Please do not juggle around with it, but be specific about it. User:ScotXWt@lk 12:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Operating systems

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

Gnome does not have hard dependencies on Linux. There are some components that integrate with Linux technologies. Requiring patches to package some piece of software is not evidence to the contrary. Next to no larger application simply packages for Linux distributions. See [10] for example. 19 files, of which only one is the actual source archive. No offense but “some patches are required, therefore it does not run” shows a deep misunderstanding about how software packaging works. Not every bit of distro adaptation is expected to be done upstream. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, Gnome does not have hard dependencies on Linux: on other systems you still get some subset of Gnome, albeit lacking many of the advertised capabilites. Several components depend on systemd (including logind and udev), networkmanager, bluez, NSS, etc. FWIW automounting and network management are critical for desktop environment, so in the end Gnome on BSDs does not provide the same experience as on Linux, needless to say about Solaris or AIX. So far PC-BSD and OpenBSD are the only non-Linux systems that ship more or less modern GNOME, and the amount of work required to keep these ports going is nowhere close to those 18 mostly trivial integration patches you link. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I consider cross-platform misleading (= [weasel words]) and Unix-like inaccurate. (=[weasel words]) The term comprises UNIX® certified OSes (= OS X, Solaris, IRIX, Tru64 UNIX, IBM AIX, etc.) plus Linux and ALL the BSDs. E.g. udev or Direct Rendering Infrastructure are not in POSIX, software that depends on them will not run on all Unix-like systems. We need to distinguish. User:ScotXWt@lk 11:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, |operating system=[[Unix-like]] is OK for software that indeed runs on any Unix with minor difficulties and does not differ significantly from one Unix-like system to another. But this is not the case here, as Gnome 3 behaves on Linux differently from other Unix-like platforms in several ways that are critical to its function. That is: |operating system=[[Unix-like]] was true for Gnome 1.x and 2.x, but it is not true for Gnome 3.x any more. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Gnome trademark(ed by others)

See trademark controversy. Not sure something about this first or should be here (or at The GNOME Project). comp.arch (talk) 10:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Merge from Adwaita

(The below was left on my user talk page; I moved it here for broader discussion. -- Beland (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC))

Hi, I noticed that you placed a template suggesting that Adwaita be merged into the GNOME article. The reason I created the Adwaita article seperately was because Clearlooks (the predecessor to adwaita; of the same importance) already has an article, and there are several pages which already link to it, including the GNOME article.

CarnivorousBunnytalk • contribs 16:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@CarnivorousBunny: Okey, thanks for explaining the rationale. Adwaita is really short at the moment, which is why I tagged it. I also wonder whether the Clearlooks article goes into too much detail and could benefit from being cut down and merged. It's handy to have an overview of what technologies were being used at various points (that's actually what I was looking for in the GNOME article), and the screenshots are helpful, but much beyond that it seems like readers should refer to the project itself. If the articles are merged, the incoming links will just point to the appropriate section of the GNOME article. I don't really have strong feelings on the matter, though, so editors here, feel free to do whatever you see fit. -- Beland (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

GNOME meaning

Is it at all relevant that the acronym(?) GNOME could be actually derived from the Greek word "Γνώμη" which actually means "opinion". Just an idea!?

@192.234.15.54: This web page mentions the origin of the name. They needed a name that started with "G" because they intended to be a GNU project. I suppose you could ask Miguel or Federico about it if you were curious. Morrowfolk (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Adwaita

I see it has been proposed to merge Adwaita (theme) into GNOME, but I cannot find any discussion about it. I'd do it immediatly, as Adwaita is currently composed of two lines of text and three photos, and I can't imagine how much more space such a subject would need...--Foelering (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Too short to be a separate article.--216.186.185.230 (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

GNOME and Debian

Debian, a Linux distribution that had historically used GNOME 2, switched to XFCE when GNOME 3 was released. However, Debian developers are planning to switch back to GNOME 3 with their next release.

That part is clearly outdated – the “next release” probably refers to Debian 8 “Jessie”, which was released almost 4 months ago.

However, I’m not sure what I should replace it with, since I can’t find where Debian switched to XFCE… according to the Debian 7 release notes, that version also contained GNOME 3. —Galaktos (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Xfce was only default for a trial period and only for the development version (sid). It never was default in a proper release version. I suggest simply removing that. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on GNOME. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is Linus' opinion included in this article?

Linus is a kernel developer, nothing more. His opinion on desktop environments is as valid as any other user. Whether Linus Torvalds likes GNOME or not is not pertinent to the topic at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.205.57 (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a underway discussion about the desktop environment categories which is also related to GNOME, I would be grateful if you participate in it:

Editor-1 (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Please participate in it. It is also related to below categories:

Editor-1 (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on GNOME. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

"Opinions by Linus Torvalds"

Is that really encyclopedia content?

The numerous ways "developed" by the GNOME developers to frustrate and torment their own users, should find their way somehow into this article. Sadly nobody seems to be "notable" enough to so so. Well, maybe Linus is, insofar Linux is the primary platform GNOME is being developed on and for. User:ScotXWt@lk 11:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

"Linux-only"

While I considered [11] an honest mistake, [12] is – IMO – now vandalism. The very fist sentence of the article disproves the claim and the Linux-only claim has been repeated – without referencing a source that disproves the 2014 reference. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I think GNOME is really a DE for Linux, in its developing process no one don't think to BSDs, it is part of GNU project, all of its developers are from Linux companies and officially developing for GNULinux and heavily uses GPL and Linux-based technologies, of course there are un-official ports to BSDs, but those are un-official. Only official OSs should mention in that parameter. Editor-1 (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
KDE Plasma 4 had a port for Microsoft Windows. Does anybody really think of KDE as a desktop for Windows? I doubt it. But the fact is, it worked on Windows and thus Windows is (correctly) listed as a platform on that page. By the same extension, GNOME works on Unix-like platforms other than Linux (such as FreeBSD [13]) and the GNOME page should therefore reflect that in my opinion. -- Charlesb95 (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
What you think is original research which is forbidden on Wikipedia. Get reliable and verifiable sources that either disprove the 2014 source or prove that Gnome policy changed since then. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
KDE 4 apps had an official port to windows not the full DE https://community.kde.org/Windows/Distribution and https://community.kde.org/Windows/Releases/4.10.2 , and saying gnome works on other Unix-Like OSs is wrong, cause gnome home page state that gnome require logind/systemd to run a session https://www.gnome.org/technologies/ (read the page), and neither of BSD/Solaris have something equivalent as we all know that systemd is Linux specific , they only have consolkit, and people maintain an unofficial patches to GDM to support consolekit so they can use it on other platforms. so it's safe to say Gnome is Linux specific Mike.hamza (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough about KDE 4. But I really don't know how you can say this: "saying gnome works on other Unix-Like OSs is wrong"
I hear what you say about the consolekit/logind issue and I know that the workarounds are unofficial. But that fact is, it can still be made to work. Just as an example, I'll link you to the package archive for OpenBSD 6.1. Note that it has GNOME 3.22. [14] And if that's not enough, here is a video of GNOME 3.20 on OpenBSD 5.9. [15]
I think that as long as GNOME continues to work on non-Linux platforms, even if one has to go through some contortions to get it working, then the page should reflect that.
-- Charlesb95 (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
gnome home page state that gnome require logind/systemd to run a session https://www.gnome.org/technologies/ (read the page)
–I've read it. A requirement is not stated. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on GNOME. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

To do

Please archive this talk page every couple days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archivthis (talk • contribs) 06:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

See also hatnote - external link?

The heading "Design", subheading "Human Interface Guidelines", has a hatnote that has the format "See also: " and a link to an external resource. I was under the impression that "see also"-type cross-references were meant to be internal cross-references, to other Wikipedia articles. Highlighting this - without an alternative in mind at this time. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Default on Debian?

I don't think so. It is certainly readily available on Debian, and has equal status with its main competitor, KDE. However I have done quite a few Debian installs and each time was presented by boxes to tick for several things including KDE and/or Gnome. So I am removing the suggestion that it is the default. This is merely for accuracy of Wikipedia, it does not reflect on Gnome, KDE or Debian in any way (I use all three), so no flame wars, please!

If anyone CAN provide evidence that it is the default in Debian, please say so and/or revert my change.

Tiger99 (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

GNOME OS

Can someone write a section about GNOME OS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.233.214.14 (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Relationship between GNOME and the GNU project

The article states "GNOME is part of the GNU Project[11] and developed by The GNOME Project", and it also states "Original author(s) The GNU Project".

Whether GNOME is part of the GNU Project is disputed. The GNU project claims that GNOME is an "official GNU software package". However, Here is a quote from Emmanuele Bassi, who is a long time core GTK developer for the Gnome Project, and former member of the Gnome Foundation board of directors:

As for the GNU project: GNOME is not part of GNU, though we focus on the same goal of a free-as-in-software-freedom operating system aimed at all users. GNOME has, and always had, its own infrastructure, rules, and governance, distinct from the GNU project.

References:

The original authors of the GNOME project, as stated in the History section, were Miguel de Icaza and Federico Mena. Since the GNOME project was never under the governance of the GNU project, copyright was never assigned to the FSF, so it is incorrect to say that "The GNU Project" were the original authors.

Astrojuanlu (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC) The Executive Director of GNOME has asked "multiple times" to GNU to remove them from their website. Source: https://twitter.com/nmcgovern/status/1382360647464316931

@Astrojuanlu: Do we have any official statement from GNOME itself (as a body)? All I see are individuals expressing their opinions. If we do not have it, I'm inclined to reinstate the line until GNOME issues an official statement. - Daveout(talk) 21:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Daveout, I think the executive director of GNOME is good enough to remove it. - MrOllie (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Ok. - Daveout(talk) 21:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Is GNOME 40 a "major" release?

Hey User:Aryan Kaushik1, regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GNOME&diff=1018141144&oldid=1018130999, while GNOME 40 is indeed a relatively big release, it's not on the same scale as GNOME 2 and GNOME 3 were. The new number is just a change in the way the versions are numbered. Would you be OK if I re-added the comment about GNOME 40 not being like 2 and 3? What about "Despite its new version number, GNOME 40 is not as major as GNOME 2 and GNOME 3 were" instead of "GNOME 40 is not a major new version"? Nonoesimposible (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

no Disagree Many sources treat it as major release. - Daveout(talk) 02:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 Comment: News sources and the Gnome team mostly treat this as major version and thus the article should too. Although, Nonoesimposible has a point in this sense, that there was no big library or backend changes in the same way as in Gnome 2 and 3. It is major, but not in technical sense, more like project direction and design direction sense. I think that should be somehow reflected, the simplest way being just expanding the Gnome 40 section. – K4rolB (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Rapid Release

The bottom section of the Release History table is labeled "Rapid Release"; I'm not sure what this means. Should it be renamed to "GNOME 40 and beyond" or something of the sort? Nonoesimposible (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree Done. Another solution would be to name that heading "GNOME 4X"; and subsequently "GNOME 5X".... or "GNOME 40 - 49" and subsequently "GNOME 50 - 59". - Daveout(talk) 12:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! The alternative headings might sound better once GNOME 41 is put into the table. Nonoesimposible (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Confusion concerning SteamOS

SteamOS has recently been added and removed from the list of operating systems that use GNOME by default. I believe the confusion results from the fact that older versions of SteamOS used GNOME, but SteamOS 3.0 uses KDE Plasma. We should come to a consensus on whether to include it or not to avoid WP:EW. NoNoEsImposible (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I personally would use it with "SteamOS 2.0" while waiting to know what will happen to SteamOS 2.0 machines. I don't believe there's currently information about whether or not those machines will be able to upgrade to SteamOS 3.0 (Debian vs Arch base). - Lionirdeadman (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The split with the GNU project needs a date

@Lionirdeadman: And here we are. Your last revert argues that it is only a detail that the split with the GNU project has been formalized in 2021 – since the relationship between GNOME and GNU was allegedly cold already – and because of that Wikipedia should not document the year when the split formally happened. My arguments against your positions are the following:

  1. The split has still been formalized in 2021
  2. We are dealing with two parties here, and while it might have been in the GNOME Foundation's mind already ten years ago (or event twenty years ago for what matters) that they did not want to be part of the GNU project anymore, we cannot say the same about the GNU project, which as far as I know has always considered GNOME as a GNU project until 2021 – and they are not to blame, GNU started the GNOME project and nobody told them anything before this year
  3. The GNOME Foundation and the GNOME community are two different things. And while the former might have distanced itself from the GNU project already long ago, a large part of the community had absolutely no idea and has learned about it only recently; and by reading what GNOME stated on their various websites even newcomers would just consider GNOME as a GNU project until 2021
  4. I am one of those who was convinced that GNOME was a GNU project – because that's what they have always written – until I saw that the Executive Director of the GNOME Foundation signed (wrote?) a very weird letter against Stallman – where the latter is accused of horrible things which are insinuated but not reported, so I still don't know what Stallman is guilty of – and started to tweet things against the GNU project out of the blue (#1, #2)
  5. If this had been a divorce between two persons, would Wikipedia mention the date when the first fights started to appear or the date when the divorce was formalized?

We need to bring back the year. --89.242.98.153 (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I just want to clarify that I don't think that Wikipedia shouldn't document the year that it was brought to the public but rather that this date alone would bring misinterpretations. My argument is more so centered around the fact that GNOME was *never* part of the GNU Project as they have never used GNU infrastructure, made their own governance structure, never were under GNU governance and never gave copyright to the FSF as all other GNU Projects have to do to my knowledge.
  1. The "split" was simply made more clear because the FSF has refused to remove GNOME from their list of software.
  2. GNU did not start the GNOME Project. Frederico Mena and Miguel De Icaza started the GNOME Project, neither of which are part of GNU and have never been as far as I know. De Icaza even founded Ximian/Helix Code in 1999 for GNOME development before GNOME Foundation was founded in 2000. Notice that neither of these were ever made with intent to be part of GNU. Furthermore, a look at the announcement from 1997 shows no mention of being part of GNU Project.
  3. I think that for the purposes of the GNOME page, trying to show community opinions is not the right way, it would become quite difficult to parse if we started doing that therefore official positions from GNOME Project should be taken instead. While I agree that websites from GNOME did not reflect the reality of the situation, I believe that these are errors over time.
  4. GNOME Foundation has had issues with GNU Project for a much longer time, I'm not going to talk about the Open Letter as it is not relevant.
  5. I think a problem with trying to give a date is that this is ambiguous in meaning (considering that they did not use GNU infra, governance or do copyright assignment) and a lot of discussions have been done mostly outside of the public view which makes it hard to cite.
I will bring up these things to people who know better than myself as to try to clarify this. Note that this is written with my personal knowledge of the situation so I may have done mistakes. - Lionirdeadman (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@Lionirdeadman:
  • My argument is more so centered around the fact that GNOME was *never* part of the GNU Project as they have never used GNU infrastructure, made their own governance structure, never were under GNU governance never gave copyright to the FSF as all other GNU Projects have to do to my knowledge. That is not a good argument. Most GNU projects belong simply spiritually to GNU, and both developers and the core of GNU hackers are happy with it; these present themselves still as GNU projects (see GIMP, Denemo, etc.) – GNOME used to be one of them. And even the most involved projects have their independence (see GCC, GNUnet, GNU Guix). That is exactly one of the differences with the GNOME Foundation; while the latter is a foundation the former is an informal federation of hackers. There is a formal foundation also behind the GNU project, but it is not called "The GNU Foundation", as in GNOME, it is called "Free Software Foundation". And the reason is very simple: its goal is not the GNU project but free software (and lately mostly free hardware, like mobile phones). There is of course some sort of "GNU infrastructure" too, but talking about "the GNU infrastructure" is way more vague than talking about the GNOME infrastructure. Also many GNU projects don't ask for the giveaway of the copyright, but apply a shared copyright (see GNUnet).
  • The "split" was simply made more clear because the FSF has refused to remove GNOME from their list of software. Asking to remove GNOME from the list of GNU software (while GNOME was still presenting itself as a GNU project) was already a formal split. So the split pre-dates a bit the tweets I quoted, and happened in that very moment in which GNOME asked to be removed from the GNU projects – if I am not wrong we are still talking about 2021.
  • GNU did not start the GNOME Project. Frederico Mena and Miguel De Icaza started the GNOME Project That is exactly how GNU projects begin. Someone writes a program (for themselves, a friend, the spouse, or whatever), and then, when it is already mature, applies to be listed among the GNU packages. Often GNU refuses to accept software. Other times they accept it. Who applied on behalf of GNOME, that I have no idea. What I know is that it was GNOME more than GNU the one who cared the most to be considered as a GNU project, at least for many of the early years.
  • I think that for the purposes of the GNOME page, trying to show community opinions is not the right way. We don't have to show community opinions, but only formal facts.
  • GNOME Foundation has had issues with GNU Project for a much longer time They didn't divorce for a long time either. A formal act is still a formal act. Without the last events it was perfectly possible to imagine – like two years ago – that these issues would be solved over time and the two parties would find again a comomn goal. Now that is definitely harder to imagine. So something did happen in 2021.
  • I think a problem with trying to give a date is that this is ambiguous in meaning and a lot of discussions have been done mostly outside of the public view which makes it hard to cite. I have no doubts, every breakup needs its time of reflection. But being a private discussion is not just an insignificant detail, it is one of the decisive points here. The public (and GNU, and GNOME itself) still referred to GNOME as a GNU project until things have become formal very recently.
  • (considering that they did not use GNU infra, governance or do copyright assignment) See my previous answers.
--Grufo (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC) - a.k.a. the previous IP address
EDIT: I forgot to answer this...
Furthermore, a look at the announcement from 1997 shows no mention of being part of GNU Project. Quoting from that email:
  1. "The GNOME Desktop project (GNU Network Object Model Environment)"
  2. "As most GNU software, GNOME application code will be released under the GNU GPL. GNOME specific libraries will be released under the terms of the GNU LGPL."
Furthermore, this is from the old "AboutGnome":

When the GNU project was ready for a desktop, it launched two parallel projects : one of them was called Harmony, a project to develop a free software replacement for the proprietary parts of KDE and the other was GNOME, a project headed by Miguel de Icaza and Federico Mena to develop a free software desktop for the GNU operating system.

— https://wiki.gnome.org/GnomeWeb/WgoAbout/History#Alternate_Version%3A_Copied_from_AboutGnome
--Grufo (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
As there are no news about this topic I am going to restore the date. --Grufo (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
It's hard to pinpoint a precise date for the Gnu\Gnome 'break up' because there wasn't a proper 'public statement' or anything official. And, according to Gnome's executive director, they've been asking GNU to remove Gnome's name from their website since 2019. So this 'break up' was something that happened slowly and under the hood. - Daveout(talk) 02:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
@Daveout: there wasn't a proper 'public statement' or anything official So we have to assume that they are still part of the GNU project? I don't understand, either you are in or you are out. In 2019 GNOME was in, according to both what the GNU project stated and the GNOME project itself stated. After 2019 it is not very clear to me what happened, but apparently a lot of fights. But even imagining it as the most peaceful breakup in the world, 1) GNOME asks GNU to remove itself from the list of GNU projects 2) GNU examines the situation 3) Both parties officialize the split. #1, #2 and #3 took their time, and this time ended in 2021. So I do not understand why it is a problem to just report the facts. We need to fix this and be precise. --Grufo (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
@Grufo: While it's probably not a good idea to simply say that gnome stopped being part of gnu in 2021, we could alternatively say that Gnome's ED publicly twitted, in 2021, that Gnome wasn't part of Gnu (may look like the same thing but it isn't); and we could also say that gnome's name was subsequently removed from the list of gnu packages in 2021. Those are probably the most accurate things we can say considering the limited sources we have. - Daveout(talk) 03:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
That might be the way to go. --Grufo (talk) 03:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Daveout: GNOME stated in various parts of their documentation until few weeks ago "GNOME is free software and part of the GNU Project". Now they removed it, and we are all happy with whatever they want to do. I have the impression however that your edits go in the direction of erasing the memory of these kind of statements. They did not erase "mentions of any link to GNU", as you wrote, they erased the condition of belonging to the GNU project. That "motto" (or however you want to call it) has been ubiquitous in GNOME's code for years. May I ask you why you insist changing my edits in this direction? The impression I get is that the sentence "GNOME is part of the GNU Project" must appear as "never pronounced" according to you. --Grufo (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Grufo: You're having the wrong impression, that's all. I'm only interested in being as accurate as possible. Gnome was part of Gnu and it no longer is. That's it. I never once tried to imply that Gnome was never part of Gnu. In reality, I've been protecting that fact from those who tried to erase it. (see here and here for example). I also looked for and added sources that stated that Gnome was once part of Gnu (here Those sources weren't there before I adeed them). The text you're trying to add simply fails WP:OR. (And by the way, unlike other ppl, I wasn't "happy" with Gnome's decision to join an angry mob in order to demonize and harass Stallman based mostly on bad faith mischaracterizations. But my personal opinions aren't relevant here.) See ya. - Daveout(talk) 20:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
@Daveout: Yeah, that story is really sad – and that letter is horrifying, it looks like a sort of vendetta clearly written with the explicit intention of hurting a person in his core beliefs. But anyway, the very fact that some people in the GNOME Foundation asked for the resignation of Stallman as the head of the GNU project per se implies the involvement in the GNU project until recently – otherwise it would be as if the UK, after proclaiming the Brexit, started to make requests about who should be the president of the EU parliament. And I believe that we should just document the truth. Grufo (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Actually, a lot of people who were never associated with GNU or the FSF asked for Stallman's head in that letter. - Daveout(talk) 21:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
I have no doubts about that too (as I wouldn't be surprised if the UK made requests about the president of the EU parliament). But besides Stallman, who can defend himself (well, kinda…), the most horrifying thing of that letter is this sentence “We urge those in a position to do so to [...] refuse to contribute to projects related to the FSF” – which basically means “Do not contribute to GNU packages” – which gratuitously throws a mountain of sh*t onto the shoulders of all GNU developers, who did nothing else than writing amazing software in their free time. I better stop here, or I will end up uninstalling GNOME. Grufo (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Update corporate contributors

The latest reference for the claim that "the largest corporate contributor [is] Red Hat" is from 2010, I wouldn't be surprised if that's still the case, but it would be nice to get an up to date source especially for things like corporate involvement which can change suddenly. Tauin (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Mobile section needs updating to reflect the new progress

GNOME Shell on mobile is now being actively developed, with the aim of desktop/mobile convergence.

development is being funded by the prototype fund: https://prototypefund.de/en/project/gnome-shell-mobile/

see

https://blogs.gnome.org/shell-dev/2022/09/09/gnome-shell-on-mobile-an-update/

https://www.omglinux.com/gnome-shell-mobile-hands-on-video/ Endim8 (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Deleting the "Release history" section

It's clear it is just going to continue on ad infinitum and massively increase the length of the article with redundant links to easily searchable releases. Recent releases just link to the current release notes with no synopsis, so unless the release is notable (e.g., GNOME 1, 2, 3, and 40) it probably doesn't need to be here. The Release History section also violates WP:NOTCHANGELOG Tauin (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect/biased critique about systemd

A new entry claims that there is a direct relationship between systemd and the XZ backdoor. This is not the case, as systemd is not the reason for the vulnerability, but rather distributions like Debian that configured the service in a way, that made it susceptible.

You could just as well say, that .deb or .rpm are the reason for the vulnerability.

It was also instrumental in getting Linux distributions to adopt systemd and thus making the entire Linux platform more susceptible to severe security vulnerabilities such as the XZ Utils backdoor.

That is simply blatant misinformation. How could this even get merged? 185.17.14.5 (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is, I've reversed the changes. QuickyWithTheWiki (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:GNOME/Archive_2&oldid=1232376161"