From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Moving Article[edit]

i moved this article to GIMP Toolkit since i think this is a clearer solution than just using a wrong/incomplete name for technical reasons. --Pythagoras1 22:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

i propose we move it back. according to Wikipedia:Announcements for January, plus signs are now allowed in article names. --Unforgettableid | talk to me 17:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I really must need glasses, but I cannot see this announcement! Would you mind telling me where on Wikipedia:Announcements this is? --Lox (t,c) 18:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I can't remember where I read it, but it's true. Move done. enochlau (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

GIMP Toolkit/Ruby Bindings[edit]

(this discussion was copied from my talk page) - Motor (talk) 09:54:20, 2005-08-12 (UTC)

Why did you reverse my edit to GIMP Toolkit ? The information that it's architecturally unfit for garbage-collected language is true, important and relevant to in the section about support for programming languages. Taw 02:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Because with the edit (and edit summary) you were trying to make a case, and not writing a encyclopedia article (and yes, I read the link you included). As I said in my edit summary, wikipedia isn't for grinding axes, nor is it a surrogate for mailing list technical disputes. Also, considering the link you provided, I'm pretty sure it counts as original research - Motor (talk) 04:46:00, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
I'm not trying to make any case, I'm merely documenting the facts, and they're not disputed by anyone.
According to your own link, they do seem to be disputed -- if not the fact that you can provoke a memory leak (which is hardly unique), then certainly the severity of the problem. Not to mention, this isn't a highly technical article (nor is it developer documentation, or a language bindings howto).
I and Ruby/GNOME2 developers found a problem that requires a change to Gtk architecture to fix correctly.
I'm not disputing that you have a technical issue with GTK while writing Ruby bindings (who doesn't), nor am I interested in defending GTK developers, merely stating that Wikipedia is not the place to complain about specific "bugs". Does the official GTK documentation acknowledge the problem, if so, perhaps you could quote that?
One of the Gtk developers that answered agreed that the problem exists, but he's clear they're not going to fix it. So nobody's disputing the facts. The problem (cooperation across GC boundaries) is not unusual, it should be documented in general in any decent reference on GC,
Your edit was not ddsfagreatgertgesrocumenting the issue. It was complaing about it. Your post to the mailing list documents the issue, and that's where it belongs. If you think it hasn't had due attention, then repost it. In fact, you might find it useful to include a link to your edited version of the article. You can find a link to it via the page history (sorry if you already know this, I'm just covering bases).
and in the Gtk case it seems it has been already discussed, even as early as 1998, wrt Guile bindings. If you cared to read No original research, you'd see quite clearly that this has nothing to do with my edit. Taw 08:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I've read it... it is original research. You think you've found a big technical problem with GTK. Reading the link it's clear that he does not agree with you about the severity of the problem, in fact he says quite clearly that "they" designed around it. None of this is relevant -- you are quoting your own research on a mailing list as a source. As I said, the mailing list is the place for this. - Motor (talk) 09:03:52, 2005-08-12 (UTC)

GTK on non-X Window System-based environments[edit]

Request that someone add a section about GTK on Windows and OSX (expand on "GTK+ can also run under Microsoft Windows") --Wootery 19:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be "GTK on non-X Window System-based environments", not "GTK on non-Linux environments" - GTK+ on Solaris+X11 is just like GTK+ on Linux+X11 is just like GTK+ on FreeBSD+X11 is just like GTK+ on NetBSD+X11 is just like GTK+ on HP-UX+X11 is.... In addition, there are non-X-based Linux environments using GTK+ - see the GTK on DirectFB page. Guy Harris 00:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer review of a related article[edit]

I submitted X Window core protocol for peer review, as I intend to candidate it for featured status. I would appreciate comments (Peer review page). - Liberatore(T) 18:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

GTK1 and GTK2+ differences[edit]

There need to some links where the differences are documented accurately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalim (talkcontribs) 14:32, 3 February 2007

How to port a Windows app to GTK[edit]

Is there a toolkit or developer's guide that summarises how to port a Windows or OS/2 App. to GTK. (For example, what are the equivalent functions for drawing on bitmaps, etc.?) If so, this would be a good addition to the article. 11:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

move to The GIMP Toolkit[edit]

I suggest to move the article to the name The GIMP Toolkit because that's the official name they give on the projects homepage (While they give you "GTK+" and "The GIMP Toolkit" below the logo in the "origins" box they tell you that " is named 'The GIMP Toolkit'...", so that tells me that "GTK+" is just the short form and not the full name.)

I actually already moved it without even giving a edit summary because things just seemed so clear to me, but User:Thumperward saw it differently and just moved it back because "GTK+" is used much more often.

So now I make my suggestion here cause I think we should have it under its official name and a redirect from the frequently used short form - and from the homepage I'm convinced that "The GIMP Toolkit" is the official full name.--Speck-Made 12:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And as I said on this user's talk, WP:NAME does not mandate that articles are given their full, official names if those are uncommonly used. In this case, "The Gimp Toolkit" is so rarely used that it makes little sense to keep the page there when there's no potential for ambiguity in thSome software that use GTK+"e abbreviated version. Chris Cunningham 12:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

GTK 1.x[edit]

I removed the section regarding "applications still using faster GTK+ 1.x" because itis completely out of date: GTK 1.x applications that still exists to this day are generally unmaintained. Also, embedded environments don't use GTK+ 1.x anymore: they either use 2.6 (i.e. pre-cairo) or 2.10/2.12 with a recent (i.e. 1.4) release of cairo. EmmanueleBassi 13:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


The new look website has a much simpler logo now, I wonder if this is now the official logo and should replace the one here. bruce89 (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's the new official logo as the author says on his blog. EmmanueleBassi (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I have uploaded the new one to Wikimedia Commons as Image:New Gtk+.svg, but I need to know its copyright status. bruce89 (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I asked the author (Andreas Nilsson) and he's not sure about the specific licensing. I've changed the current license to match the old logo ([GFDL]) as a temporary stop-gap, while the GNOME Foundation sorts it out. EmmanueleBassi (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks 02:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Release History[edit]

Why should there be a release history table, there must have been 100s of individual versions (2.12.0, 2.12.1 etc.). Perhaps just a table of major versions such as 2.8, 2.10 and 2.12 would be more suitable? bruce89 (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Some release date and notes:
2.14.3 2008/09/24
2.14.0 2008/09/04
2.12.12 2008/09/13
2.12.0 2007/09/14
2.10.14 2007/07/16
2.10.0 2006/07/03
2.8.20 2006/07/02
2.8.0 2005/08/13
2.6.0 2004/12/16
2.4.0 2004/03/16
2.2.0 2002/12/21
2.0.0 2002/03/08
1.4.0 ?
1.2.10 2001/04/02
1.2.0 1999/02/27
1.0.6? 1998/09/14?
1.0.0 ??/??/????
--Efa2 (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

GTK+ 3.0[edit]

What about talks on the next GTK+?

Imendio wants the next generation of GTK to enable development of better user interfaces with sophisticated visual effects, animations, physics, and stacking. Other desired improvements include stronger OS integration, improved back-end support, increased portability, easier custom widget creation, architecture that makes language bindings easier to maintain, and support for a data abstraction layer.

Altonbr (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Be bold, go mad. However, these are only plans from one company. bruce89 (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

I think that the link to the GTK+ book release by APress that was added by is redundant as it does not really give any information about GTK+. It just gives you a little info about the book. Maybe a link to the GTK+ tutorial might be a better link. It's not as complete as the book by A Krauss, but it's a better link than the current link. The zetcode tutorial is quite good too and I think would be preferable to the current link to the book. Mathsgeek (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"Some software that use GTK+"[edit]

It would be nice if somebody creates list of software that uses GTK+

done--Efa2 (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Blender use GTK? To me seems use Freeglut--Efa2 (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what was done, I moved "List of GNOME applications" to "List of GTK+ applications" and augmented the list to not contain only GNOME software. I also created the Category:Software that uses GTK+ and filed it, quite single-highhandedly. You are welcome to contribute User:ScotXWt@lk 19:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Mozilla applications[edit]

Mozilla Suite/Seamonkey, Firefox and Thunderbirs surely depends on GTK+. For example see: Firefox in "Set the minimum version of toolkit libs used by mozilla" section. --Efa2 (talk) 09:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't class the Mozilla things as using GTK+. They aren't native GTK+ programs, and as such, shouldn't be in the list. IMO, it'd be like adding Eclipse, or wxWidgets program in the list (they depend on GTK+ on UNIX). bruce89 (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean with "They aren't native GTK+ programs"? Are or not written with GTK?--Efa2 (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
They don't depend on GTK+ to the extend that, say, Evolution does. At least nominally, the *nix ports of the Mozilla apps have several possible X frontends. However, it's not like Eclipse (where it's a case of simply dropping in a different jar at runtime). If you build Firefox 3 using the tarball from ftp.m.o then it does have lots of hard dependencies on GTK+. So you're more right than Bruce89 is. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
They may well depend on GTK+, but use GTK+ through an abstraction layer (XUL). Mozilla programs aren't native on any platform (as with many cross-platform programs). bruce89 (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
With the terms "Mozilla applications or programs" we don't mean the application build using XUL that surely doesn't directly uses GTK, but the XUL implementation itself, that surely use GTK. I understood that XUL is based over GTK--Efa2 (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
XUL is not based on GTK+. It can make calls to the GTK theming libraries to draw its widgets, but it is not dependent or based on it in any manner. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. I removed it from the list btw. It is not built on the GTK toolkit at all, it only emulates it. (Sand & Mercury (talk) 03:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

How to build GTK+ applications on Windows[edit]

May be hard for an ANSI C developer to build GTK+ application from inside Windows, as the compiler is missing by default, and no standard location is defined in the file system for include files and static library. Should be a section with some hints.--Efa2 (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a how-to site, see WP:NOTHOWTO. bruce89 (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Source code should go in a how-to site too--Efa2 (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Protip: Use Qt. Forget GTK+.   The windows port of GTK+ development is pretty much dead.  There isn't even a port of version 3 of GTK+, while version 3 was released for almost 2 years now.   Of course there are some 'fan-made' windows ports of GTK+3, but those are mostly outdated already. RoestVrijStaal (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

How to build GTK+ applications on MacOS X[edit]

Some link to add: --Efa2 (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Replacing the "hello world"[edit]

I would like to replace the hello world with something "better". Currently, it #includes <config.h> and uses PIXMAPS_DIR, which makes it not directly compile. Also, setting the window's icon and making an "on_destroy" handler are not necessary for a hello world example. The reason that this came up is because someone on GTK+ forums had a problem with the example: Dreblen (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I simplified the GTK+ hello world example to a bare minimum, I think it should be kept "Hello world" is a defacto standard. --Gnepets (talk) 08:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Prose Quality[edit]

I have spent some time simplifying the article and improving the prose quality. This article still needs a lot of work and hopefully I will feel motivated to do more clean up work :) --Gnepets (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Object orientation[edit]

Put simple:
This is plain C. So where do the objects come from?

Just take a look at the code of the "Hello World"-sample:
It has "Imperative Programming" written all over...

So I would really recommend NOT using the term object oriented in this context! A well-designed framework it is, but that has nothing to do with the object oriented versus the imperative programming paradigm in general.

If the article stay "as is" within this regard, it is definitely confusing to someone new to programming. (Which is unnecessary, since this confusion can be avoided at virtually no cost.) (talk) 09:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

GTK+ has classes, interfaces, inheritance and encapsulation. This is what makes it Object Oriented, not the syntax of the language it has been written into. EmmanueleBassi (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Developers of GNOME reinvented C++ with their GObject#Comparisons_to_other_object_systems RoestVrijStaal (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

table of programming languages[edit]

The table of languages that support GTK is not quite correct since it states that pascal doesn't support it. In fact there is one pascal dialect called Oxygene, a net-language marked as "Delphi Prism", that explicitely offers the possibility to create GTK-projects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[edit]

The suite, like Mozilla's programs is not built on GTK+, it uses its own toolkit and then attempts to emulate your GTK+ theme. (Sand & Mercury (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC))


Hi, all, I couldn’t tell from reading the article whether an application that uses GTK+ must also be released under the terms of the LGPL.  Specifically, if I wrote an application using GTK+, can I release the application under a simple, permissive, non-viral software license such as the FreeBSD License, or would the application automatically get sucked up into the LGPL as well just because it uses GTK+?  Could someone briefly clarify how the licensing works (preferably within the main article, rather than here on the discussion page)?  Thanks! (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, never mind; added GTK+#Licensing. (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


The article mentions themes and theme engines a few times. It would be nice to see what a GTK+ theme actually is; what aspects of the toolkit a theme can and cannot modify. How does it compare to other instances of theming? Vadmium (talk, contribs) 13:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC).

What is the counterpart of QML or XUL and XULRunner in GTK+? Is there a counterpart? ScotXW (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Gnome proposal[edit]

I've proposed the creation of WikiProject Gnome. Please comment. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't {{GNOME}} enough? If people would stop deleting software like you did May 2014, maybe user's would find GTK-based software more easily. Strictly speaking, you are right, but what is the harm of linking to those programs and what the benefit of deleting the links? Looking at this attitude of yours, I am not interested at all in grooming such a WikiProject as long as you are around. The real-life GNOME developers can be as stubborn as they like, but in the Wikipedia, I would prefer a rather more wise approach. How about a WikiProject named "GTK+-based software"? User:ScotXWt@lk 19:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I also created GNOME Core Applications and augmented GNOME Games, created and filled Category:Software that uses GTK+. When GNOME Maps and Klavaro were deleted, you were not around. So, besides playing the boss now and then, what exactly would be your contribution in such a WikiProject? User:ScotXWt@lk 19:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

What is GTK+ from a more technical perspective?[edit]

Instead of simply describing GTK+ as a widget toolkit and calling it a day, I would rather start – maybe not the article, but at least the software architecture section – like this:
GTK+ is (graphical) user interface library and contains

Together with other libraries, such as GLib, HarfBuzz, Pango, etc. it is used by GNOME and others.

My point is, that most of the linked articles are, at least to me, not comprehensible. So by trying to make the software architecture-section better, we could solve that problem at make it easier for people who would like to understand how things work. User:ScotXWt@lk 19:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GTK+. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

GTK+ programs on Microsoft Windows[edit]

I stumbled over gedit 3.20 being made available for 64-bit versions of Microsoft Windows: Since it is official, I think it would be noteworthy. Why isn't the newest (3.22) made available? What about other programs, such as GNOME Files or Evince? At least Evince is recommend by the "European FSF" to open pdf-documents. User:ScotXWt@lk 16:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)