Talk:GNOME Shell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Free Software / Software / Computing  (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Free Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of free software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 
WikiProject Linux (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Questions to improve article quality 2014[edit]

What is GNOME Shell?[edit]

  • The GNOME Shell is a UX. It replaces GNOME Panel.
  • Counterparts are cinnamon-shell, hawaii-desktop-shell, KDE Plasma Netbook, KDE Plasma Desktop, KDE Plasma Active, etc.
  • Responsible for the overall concept design is/are ...
  • The graphical front-ends of all programs which make up the so called GNOME Core Applications are all re-written accordingly. ScotXW (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

How is GNOME Shell implemented?[edit]

  • GNOME Shell is implemented as a plugin/extension to Mutter (software), a window manager implementing X and compositor implementing Wayland. ;-)
  • GNOME Shell explicitly (e.g. GUADEC 2013-talk) primarily targets display sizes to be found in Notebooks/Netbooks and the like. not Desktop- or Smartphone screen sizes. Primary input is Keyboard and Mouse, but input via Touchscreen is also (obviously) considered in the design.
  • GNOME Shell is written in: ... C and JavaScript and Cascading Style Sheets?
  • Themes for the GNOME Shell are written in ... ScotXW (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The implementation of the overall design concept, is a process. It affects the underlying toolkits GTK+ and Clutter. ScotXW (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments/Rants[edit]

  • The choice of JavaScript/CSS results in poor performance (16,6ms time to draw stuff), by Bassi and others.
  • The implementation of the overall GUI design started with GNOME 3.0 and has taken a ridiculous amount of time!, by User:ScotXW.


article to day[edit]

The article to date is wrong as far as I understand, gnome shell is next generation GNOME desktop.

Mutter = Metacity + Clutter, and is meant to be a tightly integrated Compositing window manager for GNOME Shell.

  • I completely agree. The original was full of serious factual errors. I have rewritten it to correct them. Hawthorn (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Release date of GNOME 3[edit]

On the wiki article for GNOME it states that "the GNOME development team has delayed the release date to March 2011 due to robustness issues", however, in this article is stated that "the GNOME Desktop Environment scheduled for release in April 2011". Could someone verify the actual date? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plaga701 (talkcontribs) 02:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Reception[edit]

Feels biased[edit]

The reception section lacks a lot of citations, and typically reflects negatively on the product without much backing. Please remove until better documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.145.3.23 (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I removed a lot of original research and irrelevant info. Note that a lot of design decisions where made for GNOME 3 as a whole and the shell isn't used separately from it, so the reception is about GNOME 3 and not only the shell. Maybe GNOME 3 should have a separate page to reflect it. --Canaima (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing part[edit]

I've removed the text "On October 25, 2010, Mark Shuttleworth announced that future versions of the Ubuntu operating system would use the Unity Desktop instead of GNOME Shell." from Reception as it does not say anything about the reception of GNOME 3, but merely states something about Ubuntu (if this is important, it should be in an article about Ubuntu) -- if you feel that this must be here in some way, please elaborate the text. FrederikHertzum (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct! When reading the appointed link, I didn't get the impression that Unity Desktop was forked from gnome in opposition to gnome shell. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 11:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

esr's?[edit]

Should esr's comments about GNOME 3 (and Unity) as a "horrifying clusterfuck"[1] "emphasizing slick appearance over function, stripping control away from the user in the name of “simplification”"[2]; and GNOME 3 Fallback Mode as a "crippled emulation"[3] be included? -- Jeandré, 2011-11-26t05:08z

No, it doesn't give more information and the style is not appropriate for encyclopaedia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Definition[edit]

I'm not a complete newbie, I use Ubuntu and I've tried both the new interface and the fallback one, but I swear I can't understand, from this article, what the GNOME Shell actually is. I would probably understand if I tried it, but perhaps the definition can be improved. I understand that it's difficult because even the GNOME website is unable to do so.[4] Nemo 07:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Javascript[edit]

I would personally think that the idea of basing it on Javascript is an essentially destructive concept, is there anywhere such a criticism on the Net? Then it would be appropriate to mention it in the article. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 11:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Gnome Shell 3.8.3[edit]

3.8.3 is the latest stable version, but it seems they never made an official release announcement. The oldest appearance of 3.8.3 I could find dates from June 6, here are some sources: [5] [6] [7] --Isacdaavid (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Right. There was an irregular update to GS. I fixed that. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Diagrams[edit]

The two diagrams that have been added to the page I think are misleading and don't add anything to an encyclopaedic knowledge of Gnome. They have been placed there by the author and are at best very confusing.

I suggest that they are removed. Ecadre (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Then remove them. AFAIK they were added by a certain individual who lacks comprehension of how Wikipedia works and mistakes WP for a comic book… --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
What is it that confuses you? Can you be more concrete? User:ScotXWt@lk 19:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
They are irrelevant to this article. This article describes GNOME Shell, not Linux IO, and not Linux graphical stack. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 19:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
The scheme mention the INPUT and OUPUT hardware, marks it in colors and again, marks different UXes in colors. User:ScotXWt@lk 21:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. This scheme belongs to more general topic, not to this one in particular. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 22:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
It displays the hardware, that the GNOME Shell is designed for. User:ScotXWt@lk 13:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
You rationale is flawed: apparently an image of video card, photo of random PC, diagram of linux wireless stack, etc – all would be appropriate because somewhere down the stack GNOME Shell may have them. Your diagrams are not GNOME Shell-centric; their primary topic is graphical subsystem, so they are relevant to X Window System. Don't think they are appropriate there, because they are outright wong: File:Schema of the layers of the graphical user interface.svg mentions some software called "graphical interface" sitting between window manager and user, and File:Linux kernel ubiquity.svg is blatantly misleading (denies keyboard IO for servers and embedded computing, claims direct interaction of all software with kernel).
I also wonder, what word in "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle" do you not understand? You boldly added these "illustrations", I reverted them and we are supposed to discuss it before any further action is taken. "Note: "BRD" is commonly used to refer to the principle that a revert should not be reverted again by the same editors until the changes have been discussed, as that could constitute edit warring. Avoiding edit warring is a policy that all editors must follow." (WP:BRD).
P.S.: three editors find this content of yours inappropriate, and you (author, as you claim) alone argue for inclusion. Such situation is normally called strong consensus against inclusion. Please, self-revert ASAP. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 19:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
"apparently an image of video card, photo of random PC, diagram of linux wireless stack" no, that is not at all the point! Please look at the colors green and blue. That is the point. User:ScotXWt@lk 18:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This color coding isn't helpful without explanation. Sufficient explanation would be WP:UNDUE because it would involve too much about underlying software, which is out of the scope of this article, so WP:WEIGHT concerns rise. Also, as I stated before, these diagrams are too inaccurate to be included anyway. Again: please, self revert and keep them out until at least there'll be no consensus. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 22:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Czarkoff, those images are completely pointless on this article, and completely ignore that Wikilinks exist to facilitate further reading on relevant subjects; the diagrams don't have to be inserted into any and every slightly relevant article. Please stop trying to cram two images you created into articles they don't belong on. I'm looking at the list of articles they're currently shown on and I'm having a hard time trying to figure out how this image is supposed to belong on this article, for example. It doesn't belong in that article and it doesn't belong here either. - Aoidh (talk) 06:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I, too, agree with Czarkoff. Maybe it's time to have some work group look into Scot. It's not the first time he's acting that way… --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)