Talk:GNOME/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  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)
thread_title:  Non-NPOV w/r/t KDE? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Split 

message: :"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)
thread_title:  HIG 

message: With the imminent release of GNOME 2.12 new screenshots are way, way overdue. Unfortunately, I'm on a 56k modem and searching through new candidates is *painful*. Anyway, I'd like to open a discussion for potential replacements (I've tried before, but I think it's worth another go):
IMO, we need two (possibly three) screenshots for this article... no more.
# A shot of the default theme (ClearLooks for 2.12) with various interesting apps open: browser, image app, word processor... all arranged artfully. This is for the tasteful "opening" shot of the article.
# A shot with an interesting looking language script (Benghali used currently) demonstrating the important internationalisation features.
# (debatable) A shot that has been heavily customised to show off various features.
Screenshots need to be distro/OS neutral (no gratuitous mentions of Fedora/Ubuntu/Debia/JDS etc) and tasteful. If anyone finds any interesting candidates can you include an external link below (don't upload them to wikipedia just as a candidate for this article). It's probably worth starting by browsing here the art.gnome.org forums. They have a screenshots thread full of potential candidates -- though obviously it's better to start at the end of thread since they are newer. Anyone up for it? - Motor (talk) 12:54:49, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
===Screenshot candidates external links===
*Example shot to demonstrate how to add candidates
* Googled and found this one. It shows the internationalisation features.
::It's a start, but it doesn't really show much. Ideally it'd be nice to see a shot of someone working in a non-English script... word processing, for example. This shot is of English webpages. - Motor (talk) 01:50:43, 2005-09-08 (UTC)
*Another one from the Release Notes. This too doesn't show that much - but I think it's a lot better than the screenshots that we have right now. My suggestion: change the default picture to this one until we have any better. David Björklund 15:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've uploaded it and used it as the infobox image. I kept the old one for the time being and moved it to later in the article. - Motor (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Screenshots... part #134243

message: *Example shot to demonstrate how to add candidates
* Googled and found this one. It shows the internationalisation features.
::It's a start, but it doesn't really show much. Ideally it'd be nice to see a shot of someone working in a non-English script... word processing, for example. This shot is of English webpages. - Motor (talk) 01:50:43, 2005-09-08 (UTC)
*Another one from the Release Notes. This too doesn't show that much - but I think it's a lot better than the screenshots that we have right now. My suggestion: change the default picture to this one until we have any better. David Björklund 15:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've uploaded it and used it as the infobox image. I kept the old one for the time being and moved it to later in the article. - Motor (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Screenshot candidates external links

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

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

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

message: What's the best way... I think there's a standard way of expressing pronunciation on Wikipedia -- anyone want to look it up before I get around to it? I've reverted it back to "guh" for the moment because even though it's a bit ugly it does the job, whereas g-nome doesn't. - Motor (talk)
I visited the page to find that out and it wasn't here!  I went and found this:
GNOME stands for "GNU Network Object Model Environment". GNU stands for "GNU's Not Unix", and has always been officially pronounced "guh-NEW" to minimize confusion. Since GNU is GNOME's first name, GNOME is officially pronounced "guh-NOME".
However, many people pronounce GNOME as just "NOME" (like those short people from legend), nobody will hurt you if you find this pronunciation easier.
I suggest text to this effect be added to the page.
http://library.n0i.net/linux-unix/applications/x/gnome/faq/x104.html
David
:For the longest time I was pronouncing it "jee-nome" (like genome) until I realized that it was actually the same word as those little mythical creatures; so then I pronounced it "nome" (gnome), and then I finally ran across this page and now I have to change yet again! <g> I still find it hard not to slip back into "jee-nome"... - dcljr (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: g-nome/guh-gnome

message: A small note on 
* KDE and GNOME being friends 
* how they have to cooperate to become better (think ISV support, freedesktop.org, better drivers, ...)
* how, exactly because they are differents, they are able to attract different types of users from Windows (and macos x, but this is less important), which is the real concurrent
* how the morons who tends to flame the other desktop environment cause a lot of harm to the very desktop they think they defend, since nobody profits on propaganda on the long term, and the only result of the flaming is that in 100% of the cases, somebody "on the other side" will flame back
Such a paragraph would be very helpful if we want that the two articles not be regulary vandalized by proud idiots (and that's the most polite term I found)
The posts in defense of GNOME by Aaraon Seigo during the infamous and stupid Linus's flaming can be use as a starting point for the redaction of this important paragraph.
Cross-posted to Talk:KDE
I propose to continue the discussion/redaction here
:Excellent idea. there are many many parts of KDE and GNOME that are common to both desktops.
:84.102.180.68 11:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already a freedesktop section in this article. As for the other points: 
* "KDE and GNOME being friends"? KDE is only mentioned in this article in relation to the origin of GNOME and a quick mention in the freedesktop section (along with XFCE) about how fd.o encourages cooperation between different desktop environments. That's more than enough IMO, because this is an article about GNOME not KDE. 
* How GNOME/KDE are different? What have the features of KDE got to do with this article? If someone wants to read about KDE, there's an article already. This issue came up once before and my attitude remains the same: this isn't a review of GNOME, nor is it a guide to help users decide which one (Windows/Mac/GNOME/KDE?XFCE) they want to use. If someone wants to start a "Comparison of desktop environments" article, that's up to them, but I'm not interested in having something like that within this article as I don't see how it would improve it.
* "How the morons tend to flame other desktop environments" ... who cares? How would documenting the activites of a few loud mouthed idiots improve this article?
*As for this article being regularly vandalised... it's not... at least no more than any other article on wikipedia.
- Motor (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

message: As I said in the edit summary, I don't believe we need a table with a single abbreviated entry for this. We have a future developments section already, and it needs expanding. A paragraph or two documenting what will be in the next version of GNOME, or further down the line would be welcome there --- and it will be a lot more informative too - Motor (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is for listing developments... whether or not they are likely to be included in GNOME. "Some are considered purely experimental concepts, or for testing ideas that will one day migrate into stable GNOME applications; others are code that is being polished for direct inclusion." If the project is dead, then it should be removed... but not just because it is a bit unlikely to end up in an official GNOME release. I've added a source from about 2 years ago, but if you can provide a source showing that the idea is long abandoned and no work is happening on it, then we can remove it. - Motor (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Planned future releases

message: could someone draft some kind of explanation of how "the text in Section 6 of the LGPL v2.1 prohibits linking to software with a license that restricts reverse-engineering and modification of the work for the customer's own use." as this could be very valuable to those users who don't want to have to trudge through licenses and who might be instantly put off the very idea of GTK because of this.
:If someone wants to explain the details of the LGPL then they can do it on the LGPL article where it belongs. - Motor (talk) 09:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGPL licensing issues explanation 

message: A WikiProject for GNOME/GTK software... an attempt to collect, clean up, organise and expand the range of GNOME/GTK articles. Is anyone interested in setting it up and running it? Is it worth it... are there large gaps in the coverage that would benefit from a more centralised organisation and team work (collaboration of the week etc)? - Motor (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good idea to me ! Many GNOME related pages are in need of attention and many still need to be written, this could really get things going. I would love to help, although I do not have excessive time to devote to Wikipedia. What about a GNOME portal ? Karderio 12:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A project is less formal, as I understand it. A portal requires more of a committment. I'd start with a project and see where that leads before going to the effort of building a portal. But hey, if someone wants to put in the work for a portal... good on them. I'll be happy to help out, project or portal, time permitting. - Motor (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GNOME WikiProject

message: I have just been wandering about a few GNOME related articles, to find that several were not in the "GNOME" category. I added a couple to this category, but I am unsure exactly which articles should be added.
Things that are not currently in this category, but are rather "GNOME related", are : GTK+, D-BUS, Cairo, GStreamer, HIG (this is not GNOME specific, but mentions and external links to the GNOME HIG, a nice border case) ; although ATK, GObject, Pango are in the "GNOME" category.
Applications that "run under GNOME" but are not in the "GNOME" category are : GAIM, the GIMP, Inkskape ; however Abiword and Banshee are in the "GNOME" category.
My question may seem rather reminiscent of the previous "What constitutes a GNOME/KDE app" discussion, but here it is anyway : what should we include in the GNOME category ?
Categories are rather useful, think of what effort would be saved on starting a GNOME WikiProject if we do not have to search for GNOME related articles. I would like to remark that if we adopt a stringent policy for putting articles in the GNOME category, we could miss out on finding things "slightly GNOME related".
Karderio 23:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it's worth renaming that catagory to be explicit as "The GNOME Project"... and then adding it only to projects/techinology which really are actually part of The GNOME Project. Then we can see about catagories that better suit the relationship of things like Abiword to GNOME ("GNOME/GTK+"...?) We might also consider a "Freedesktop.org" catagory for things like gstreamer and D-BUS. - Motor (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like someone went through and added the category "Freedesktop.org" to the necessary pages... cheers. I've created the cat page now. - Motor (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What exactly can be put in the GNOME category ? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Would you like to add that explanation to the article? - Motor (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Explanation of the word GNOME 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Release announcements and press releases 

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

message: Why isn't the GNOME logo a gnome ?  ( and why is it a footprint instead ? )
:Miguel talks about this at http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/gnome-history.html -kurros 17:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: Everyone OK whit adding this to "GNOME applications" ?
Applications that are specifically designed for GNOME will work under KDE too, and vice versa, but the apps usually do not load and work as quick, and there are sometimes bugs when used under an other desktop environment than intended. Similarely, applications designed to work under both desktop environments load and work more slowly then apps disigned spicifically for that desktop environment (e.g. OpenOffice works more slowly under either DE, than Kword works under KDE).
: That would be better saved for an article on portability or interoperability (or even freedesktop.org) than on the GNOME article, where it would just look like POV. Chris Cunningham 11:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GNOME applications 

message: (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)
replies: text: The selected article has changed again and is now Tor (anonymity network). Gronky 14:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On [[Portal:Free software]], GNOME is currently the selected article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. —ptk✰fgs 20:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unicode again 

message: 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)
replies: text: Also grave spelling and grammatical problems, and no sources for the statements. Also, "Nautalis". —ptk✰fgs 17:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  KDE has a criticisms section so why doesn't Gnome?  It's not as if there has never been any and it has been far more high profile than criticism of KDE as Linux Torvalds has spoken out against it several times: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/usability/2005-December/msg00022.html .  It would be perfectly fair to discuss the removal of features that might confuse users as that is a major issue. 9point9 21:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Criticisms/Usability 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've made a clean screenshot on Ubuntu, I hope it looks good ;) --Emx 18:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  2.16 screenshot 

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

message: I made a . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Template 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Usability / criticism 

message: Does anyone know how to get the "glass" theme mentioned in the article? -- Stormtalon 09:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GNOME Glass theme 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Readibility 

message: 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)
thread_title:  gnome-screenshot article constantly gets deleted!!! :x 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Aero Glass Theme 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "GNOME team" 

message: It would be cool to get an updated screenshot of the Japanese desktop, now that Pango supports vertical scripts, and the user has vertical panels.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.89.149 (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese/2.13 Screenshot 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Subprojects of Gnome 

message: 2.22 is out. 38+ days ago. Why is the image for gnome on the main page still 2.20? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.147.229 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 20 April 2008
:Probably because switching every single image on every release of every software-related Wikipedia page would be pretty much impossible.
:It's not that important that the image is the latest version, unless some notable changes to the looks were made.
:Mabye they were and I'm missing something? Darkuranium (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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  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)

text: I've been the guy uploading the images as releases come out, taking them from the release notes.  Unfortunately, the latest notes (http://library.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/2.22/) don't have a good image to use. juancnuno (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  External link to gnome-look.org ? 

message: Where does the pronunciation used in this article come from? I couldn't find any mention on http://gnome.org, and a Google search only returns debates on forums. I suppose that one could assume it from the pronunciation of GNU, but is there anything more substantial? —Frungi (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess that Gnome is pronounced differently all over the world depending on which local dialect is spoken. I don't think that this part makes much sense. -- 84.170.65.158 (talk) 09:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why turn the "Releases" table into a paragraph? 

message: Thanks --Bcjordan (talk) 03:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly in C, but also in a lot of other language (since several language bindings exist).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.137.209.67 (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add or expose factoid request: What's GNOME programmed in? 

message: What i kinda miss is a Gnome Controversy section.
I use gnome on my desktop but not because i like it but because it's currently the "best" (more like the least worst) option there is. KDE is still (4.3) not stable and mature enough to be my default DE of choice.
Another thing i miss is people have complained a lot about gnome's "idiotic" behavior to have as little settings as possible.
Or even the part where Linus Torvalds calls them interface nazis... (with the note that since KDE 4 is released he is also using Gnome till KDE is usable again)
And where is the part that gnome nearly got forked? Anyone remembers GoneME? Just one note about GoneME is in the 2.6 version line under releases.
So please tell the full Gnome story (with the bad sides included)! The current Gnome article on wikipedia makes gnome sound like an awesome DE but it seems to miss all the opinions against it. The fact that is it the biggest right now is because KDE screwed KDE 4 a lot and is just now making it work good again. So, Gnome might be the most used DE but hardly because it's the best one.. far from it.. just the best out of worse options.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.125.249.96 (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You/he could just use XFCE instead, it's quite the spectacle now. 24.241.229.253 (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gnome Controversy? 

message: GNOME Shell is included within GNOME 3 by default, and thus, GNOME 3 is being delayed due to possible feature issues in the software. Though whether or not that is the true reason for the delay, it is a possibility due to the fact that once installed in Ubuntu 9.10, GNOME Shell is highly unusable, especially with a dock without a GNOME Menu widget (This means, only AWN (With Cairo Menu) and Cairo Dock are usable due to their menu systems. GNOME Do's docky is not, even though it has been suggested to have a GNOME Menu Widget.) GNOME Shell also has no ALT+TAB Interface yet, I have tried alt+tab in GNOME Shell myself, it simply does not work. Since GNOME Shell uses gnome-shell --replace and comes with mutter, compiz is incompatible with it. You also cannot specify the default number of desktops/workspaces in GNOME Shell, and furthermore, adding more than 2 workspaces makes the workspaces look like they are on more than one row, which they definitely are not. Also, using ALT+F2 works, but doesn't give application suggestions like the gnome panel version. Also, GNOME Panel cannot run while GNOME Shell is running. There is no applet system yet for GNOME Shell either, so no precious weather in the panel up top, you would have to instead rely on gdesklets for that. This is all original research, so you cannot add this to the article. Try out GNOME Shell on ubuntu yourself if you have doubts though. 24.241.229.253 (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see something about gnome-shell too! It is the killer "innovation" for gnome 3 right? If KDE mixes the panel and the desktop, I guess it's HIG-compliant to mix the window manager and the panel... *shrug* 120.28.90.118 (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I don't even know what HIG stands for. Oh well. 24.241.229.253 (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  "See also" Dilemma 

message: It is stated in the Gnome 3.0 section that it is to be released on March 2011, however, the GNOME Shell article states that it is to be released on April 2011, that same date (April 2011) is the one announced on gnome.org as the release date.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plaga701 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, updating the article per http://library.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/2.32/#rnlookingforward. –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 01:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date of GNOME 3 

message: what is the windowing system of GNOME?
at the begining of the article it says that GNOME is a desktop environment and that it runs on top of the operating system. and in the X Window System article it is said that "X Window System" is part of the desktop environment. therefore, does GNOME "include" "X Window System"? or it has a free software alternative to X Window system?
for a desktop environment, isn't it awkward to not mention the windowing system?
--78.167.48.99 (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windowing System 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Controversy over GNOME v3.0 

message: 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)
thread_title:  GNOME '''v.'''X.Y 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  past release image for Gnome 2.6 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Applications 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: A way better place would be GNOME Foundation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I agree. – Pnm (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight of Community section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  What about Cinnamon (user interface)? It's proving to be quite popular already... CodeCat (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be adequately described in prose, I don't think a list is required. - SudoGhost 07:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Cinnamon (user interface) has been released to 1.2, a version considered as stable as there is no minor build number. 
Also, Cinnamon complies with WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG as it meets the following criteria:
The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. References that cite trivia do not fulfill this requirement. See following section for more information.
Many such reviews exist (with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.):
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/mints-cinnamon-the-future-of-the-linux-desktop-review/10246
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/12/cinnamon-project-keeps-gnome-2-style-desktop-alive/
Wei2912 (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Gnome forks list