Talk:GNOME/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Discussion copied from Talk:List of GNOME applications was: Bureaucracy

Be Bold, Revert, Discuss. Note that Discuss is the last thing on this list, not the first. "it has not been discussed" is not a reason to prevent edits on articles; discussion is for breaking deadlocks, not for signing committees. Chris Cunningham 15:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said on the GNOME page, being bold is not about edit warring. You made a major change, and I reverted it because you haven't provided a good enough reason. While you are reading up on Wikipedia ettiquette, you might also check up the guidelines on being reasonable and seeking consensus. - Motor (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I am being reasonable. I have provided justification for the change, and I'm not sitting about for an indeterminate amount of time waiting for a general consensus of my peers to suddenly materialise because one guy has an issue with change (you've even said you don't have an opinion on the matter, so this is bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake).
No you have not provided justification for the change. You have your own personal definition of "GNOME application" and want to remove a lot of items from the list -- and you are using an edit war to get your own way. As for not having an opinion on what a GNOME app is... that's not true. 1) I know you definition is bizarre, and as a consequence I intend to ensure that more opinions are heard before the change goes through.(oh and BTW: making sure that edits are sourced and justified properly is not bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, it happens to be a major part of making Wikipedia a reliable source of information) - Motor (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Opinions schopinions. On the other article I've provided a little direct evidence along with an information link which explains a little more about the distinction between a project app and one which merely uses the platform. If you want more opinions you can go out and find them, while I continue to tidy articles up to a higher standard of accuracy. Chris Cunningham 01:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, Talk:GNOME#"GNOME Applications". I can keep restating the same thing, just to have you ignore it if you like but it is rather counterproductive. I've already said multiple times that you can make a changes to the article if you provide some proof that they are correct. You haven't. You continue to redefine what "GNOME application" actually means (away from the accepted use of the term) and on the back of that you have removed a number of entries from the list. You have provided nothing to support your definition of what a GNONE app is... now if there is a widespread consensus among editors of these articles that your definition is correct, or you provide some convincing evidence... that's fine. But you haven't, and as yet, there isn't. - Motor (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Accepted sense of the word"

There are two possible definitions for "GNOME Application":

1. A program which is part of the GNOME desktop project.
2. A program which uses GTK+ as its toolkit.

This doesn't appear to be in dispute. What *does* appear to be vigourously defended by one editor is that the correct definition is number 2.

I dispute this. A simple google for "not a gnome app" turns up 318 results naming applications such as Mozilla, Thunar, BMP and Gaim, which all use the GTK+ toolkit. So there's evidence which supports me. On the other hand, your evidence comes from the article itself, which had no discussion at all on the issue, no introductory text explaining the issue and a large list of apps contributed by random users. As with all lists, it would tend to grow by itself regardless of how accurate it was.

Based on the fact that I personally use "GNOME app" to refer only to things which are part of the GNOME project itself, and that at least 318 Google results for "not a gnome app" turn up people who appear to use the term the same way as me, I couldn't care less whether you want this signed off in triplicate by random Wikipedia contributors. If you want random GTK apps in this list, provide proof that this is the "accepted sense of the word" beyond the fact that they once made it unopposed into a worse version of the article. And stop reverting a change because of the mere fact that it's a change. Chris Cunningham 07:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

2. A program which uses GTK+ as its toolkit.
No... GNOME VFS, Bonobo, integration with the GNOME panels, in fact using the services and libraries provided by the GNOME project.
This integration is provided by the freedesktop standards these days; the toolkit being used is mostly irrelevant to how well integrated an app is into the desktop. Chris Cunningham 11:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
A GNOME application. A KDE application. A Windows application. A Mac OSX application. This is how people use the term. the fact that absolutely no-one else has tried to define it your way over time that this section has existed just shows how unusual your interpretation is. On the other hand, people have long argued about GTK app vs GNOME app -- which is a much more grey area. Personally, the fact that GNOME technologies have migrated into GTK just defines all GTK apps as GNOME apps...
Why have you been lying about not having an opinion one way or another, then? You just explicitly stated that you think all GTK apps are GNOME apps. You've been as disingenuous as you have been self-righteous. Chris Cunningham 11:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
but that is an arguable point (however I would not include an app on a list of GNOME apps just because it could target GTK -- Firefox, OO.org etc far too controversial. If it used GTK exclusively then... possibly. As I said, arguable). I already offered you the opportunity to indvidually remove items and justify their removal based on not using GNOME technology. Yet you continue to do wholesale removals based on a suprious definition of "GNOME application" that the GNOME project itself does not use.
On the other hand, your evidence comes from the article itself, which had no discussion at all on the issue, no introductory text explaining the issue and a large list of apps contributed by random users. As with all lists, it would tend to grow by itself regardless of how accurate it was.
My evidence comes from the fact that the GNOME project itself does not use the term "GNOME Applications" to refer only to those applications which are part of the GNOME project. How much more authoritative would you like it to be? If you can find GNOME documentation that does so... provide the link.
How about you provide counter-proof? You've no more of an inherent authority to say which is correct than I have, and yet you're not providing anything new to aid your cause. Chris Cunningham 11:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, you completely the ignore the example I gave of "Evolution" -- an application that was not part of the GNOME CVS, and was not released with GNOME... and yet was a GNOME application since it relied on it heavily. It was refered to as such by its authors, and by articles ever written about it... and by the GNOME project. By your definition, it could not have been listed of List of GNOME applications. You completely ignore the fact that the links you supplied do not in any way back up your case (were you hoping that I wouldn't bother to read them and just give up, because it seems that way?). You talk about this article, and yet you make the same changes to List of GNOME applications -- which, as I said, is a list of applications targetted at the GNOME desktop in the convential sense of the term. At least you realise this, since your most recent edit was an attempt to rewrite the introduction of that article to support your own definition. If you want to catalogue the applications that are part of the GNOME project, I have no problem with that... but I will not allow you to do it by redefining what "GNOME application" means, on this article or on List of GNOME applications and then trying to force it through by using an edit war.
Evolution was only made "part of GNOME" in 2.8 according to the 2.8 release notes. If it were a GNOME app previously, why would this even be mentioned? Chris Cunningham 11:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Apparently you intend to force it on this article and List of GNOME applications regardless of common sense or basic wikipedia ettiquette of seeking a consensus. Your childish edit summaries just suggest that you are only interested in getting your own way ("Stop energy"? Really? How about preventing you from unliterally redefining what a GNOME application is?).
Seeing as you still haven't provided any evidence that your definition of the term is the most widely used, I don't see how I'm redefining anything. Chris Cunningham 11:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I dispute this. A simple google for "not a gnome app" turns up 318 results
Try googling for 'fatuous nonsense'. The results are about as relevant to this discussion.
So the opinions of random editors can force a decision, but real-world evidence of usage is irrelevant? Mayhaps you mistook this for some other project?
Based on the fact that I personally use "GNOME app" to refer only to things which are part of the GNOME project itself, and that at least 318 Google results for "not a gnome app" turn up people who appear to use the term the same way as me,
This is a nonsensical extrapolation of a google result. I repeat: your entire case is based on a definition that apparently only you use, and certainly not the GNOME project itself. I'm willing to listen to other editors' views on the matter. You aren't.
I said I wasn't prepared to *wait* for other people to comment because some random guy takes issue with change. This isn't the same as ignoring consensus. I don't see a meandering list with little real discussion of its contents as consensus at this stage. Chris Cunningham 11:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
You may refer to that as "stop energy", I refer to it as ensuring that this article doesn't end up chopped to bits by someone determined to edit war until he gets it the way he wants. I repeat: being bold is not about rampaging through articles that you have never edited before trying to impose your own definitions headless of Wikipedia ettiquette. You appear to have the odd idea that instead of waiting and discussing your disputed changes with other editors, it is better to immediately turn it into a revert war. - Motor (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm no more imposing my definition than you are. You've wasted my time for days now imposing your own POV on the article when you could have contributed by making the compromise and diving the article into "GNOME applications" and "GTK applications" or the like. I've got no inclination to spend my own time compromising to appease people who think they have infinite authority to revert changes they disapprove of. Eventually someone will come along and make the compromise and we'll both be happy, but again I'm not planning on holding my breath until that happens. If you can truly see both sides of the debate then edit the article to reflect them . Chris Cunningham 11:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


This integration is provided by the freedesktop standards these days; the toolkit being used is mostly irrelevant to how well integrated an app is into the desktop.

GNOME VFS and Bonobo are specified on freedesktop? That's news.

Why have you been lying about not having an opinion one way or another, then? You just explicitly stated that you think all GTK apps are GNOME apps. You've been as disingenuous as you have been self-righteous.

I haven't been lying, disingenuous or self-righteous -- and I note the fact that you have dragged this down into personal abuse now. I do not take a position in this article over the GTK/GNOME issue (I said this right at the start)... the issue of GTK vs GNOME is old, and has been raised before... and it is somewhat of a grey area and people tend to fight over it. I do have a problem with you unilaterally deciding that something isn't a GNOME application just because you have redefined a commonly used term like "GNOME application" without the slightest justification for it.

How about you provide counter-proof? You've no more of an inherent authority to say which is correct than I have, and yet you're not providing anything new to aid your cause.

You are the one making the change. I've already given you a counter example to your "must be GNOME CVS" argument. I've also asked you to show me where the GNOME project defines GNOME applications as only those in GNOME CVS. You haven't done this. I even made it quite clear that you *could* make the change you are looking for *if* you can back it up by finding where the GNOME project does make this definition. You have done none of these things.

Evolution was only made "part of GNOME" in 2.8 according to the 2.8 release notes. If it were a GNOME app previously, why would this even be mentioned?

... because it wasn't part of GNOME before then. That doesn't stop it being a GNOME application in the same way that Photoshop is a Windows application. Evolution was commonly refered to as a "GNOME application" (as in, an application built using GNOME technology) before it was ever made part of GNOME, and anyone trying to make an argument that it wasn't a GNOME application would, frankly, be regarded as mad. The fact that the release notes say it was made part of GNOME is irrelevant. No-one is arguing against the fatc that it wasn't part of GNOME, and then become part of GNOME.

So the opinions of random editors can force a decision, but real-world evidence of usage is irrelevant? Mayhaps you mistook this for some other project?

First of all, you have provided no "real world evidence". Second... googling for "not a gnome app" and claiming that as evidence is fatuous nonsense.

I said I wasn't prepared to *wait* for other people to comment because some random guy takes issue with change. This isn't the same as ignoring consensus. I don't see a meandering list with little real discussion of its contents as consensus at this stage.

Random guy? I wrote the bulk of this article. Had you bothered to take five minutes to read the talk page instead of starting an edit war, you would have realised that. I disagreed with your change... not only that I've repeatedly said that you are welcome to argue that applications on that list are not GNOME apps but rather GTK apps that use no GNOME technology (if you can show that to be so with an authoritative link). I will *only* refuse to let you remove them on the grounds that they are not in "GNOME CVS" and therefore not "GNOME Applications", because I regard this argument as nonsense. I've even said that if there turns out to be a consesus in your favour, I will let the change go through. You haven't taken that opportunity, instead you have stuck to a bizarre definition of "GNOME application" and provided no evidence to back it up.

I'm no more imposing my definition than you are. You've wasted my time for days now imposing your own POV on the article

So that would be me imposing my definition by repeatedly asking for more opinions would it? Me saying that if the other editors of these articles disagreed with me, then I would agree to the change (you have been reading the replies, haven't you?). Yes, Chris... I'm a real tyrant and POV warrior.

I've got no inclination to spend my own time compromising to appease people who think they have infinite authority to revert changes they disapprove of.

I have authority to make you justify your changes... and that's the same authority that any Wikipedia editor has. Let's remember: you are the one trying to change something. I have repeatedly asked you to justify it... I've tried to divide the issue of GTK vs GNOME away from the issue of GNOME CVS and allow you to make certain removals seperate from your unusual central claim about GNOME CVS... to try to get you to compromise and discuss the matter reasonably and without resorting to edit warring. I remain, as I have throughout this entire business, willing to listen to arguments about about how likes of Gaim are not GNOME applications because they only use GTK stuff. Perhaps I should have written that in bold font this time... I don't want you to overlook it yet again. - Motor (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


Also posted to the KDE page

[edit] What constitutes a GNOME/KDE app

User:Thumperward on Talk:GNOME insists that the term "GNOME application" applies only to applications which are in GNOME CVS, and are part of the GNOME release process. I disagree, and reverted the article to its original form until some kind of wider consensus was reached on what appears to be his unilateral redefinition of "GNOME application" -- on whether it is acceptable or not. Thumperward is continuing to revert the article in an attempt to force his view over and above and discussion of the matter. We are currently way over the 3RR and getting nowhere. I therefore feel it necessary to widen the matter. The issue is larger than just GNOME, it also applies to KDE applications. What are the views on this? I understand the distinction between GTK apps and GNOME apps, and Qt apps and KDE apps... that is not really the issue at the moment. Does not being a direct part of the KDE project and not stored in KDE CVS mean that an application is not refered to as a "KDE Application". For the sake of keeping the discussion in one place and manageable, could any replies please be added to Talk:GNOME. Thank for any input. - Motor (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The issue of "GTK or GNOME" and "Qt app or KDE app" is very much at the centre of this. Please see the commentary here [1] by Aaron Seigo on how to differentiate between KDE-the-platform and KDE-the-libraries for why GNOME and KDE both have problems with the name of the project being the same as the name associated with the toolkit and technologies. I'm of the opinion that this needs to be discussed in the article itself, and that lists of applications using the desktop toolkits do not lazily throw in anything at all which uses GTK or Qt because of the distinction. Chris Cunningham 11:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The issue of "GTK or GNOME" and "Qt app or KDE app" is very much at the centre of this. Please go back and reread the threads above, you will see that I am quite willing to discuss GTK app vs GNOME app -- I said this quite specifically two or three times at least. What I am not willing to do is let you redefine "GNOME Application" to say that it must be in GNOME CVS and be part of the GNOME release. That makes no sense and flies in the face of the accepted and common use of such a term. That is what the link with KDE is about... and that is why I decided to widen the discussion there too, since your claim would directly affect that article too. On this specific issue, whether it is a GTK or GNOME, or QT or KDE app is irrelevant.
As I said before, if you want to remove an individual entry and argue that it doesn't use any GNOME technology... fine (as long as you back it up. The example I gave you above was Gaim... does it use GNOME technology or is it purely a GTK app?). If you want argue that it is purely a GTK app, not a GNOME app... fine. But your basic claim, and the reason you kept making wholesale removals of several apps is that they aren't "GNOME Applications", by your own unusual definition. As for the naming issue: this article quite clearly states that the list is of major applications based on GNOME. I don't think "based on GNOME" is misleading... had it said "part of GNOME", then you would have had a point, but it doesn't and never has, and neither did the other article to which you applied your new definition of "GNOME application": List of GNOME applications. In fact, that article was quite explicit... example: "the following list presents software products which use GNOME development libraries and technology". - Motor (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
If you can explain what is meant by "GNOME technology" outside of bonobo and the capplet spec, I'll accept that you know what you're talking about. My definition is not unusual unless you can provide proof that it it unusual. And having previously stated that you think GTK apps are GNOME apps by definition anyway, even baiting me into providing proof for you is disingenuous. I'm not reverting this for the time being simply to see if any commentary is generated opposing the move. if it isn't, I'm removing those entries and reworking the article to reflect a position which has so far only been opposed by one person.
Secondly, my comment about apps in GNOME CVS being GNOME apps was made in comments, not in the article. All the things I removed fail the bonobo+capplet test as well, so if you're truly being objective then you have to let them slide on your own terms. Chris Cunningham 14:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
If you can explain what is meant by "GNOME technology" outside of bonobo and the capplet spec, I'll accept that you know what you're talking about.' -- how gracious of you. Technology developed under the aegis of the GNOME project. That includes things like GNOME VFS, which I stated earlier too... or gconf, or let's add another: use of Evolution data server (which is now part of GNOME). For example: Gaim recent desktop bounty. To say, for example, that Gaim isn't a GNOME app (ie. doesn't use GNOME technology) just because it doesn't *have* to use EDS and instead rely only on GTK and offer less functionality is splitting hairs to an insane degree. Incidentally, I would not oppose Gaim being listed as a Windows application either, nor would I oppose it being listed as an "Y" application, if "Y" was a GTK-based desktop which Gaim used technology from, even if it wasn't essential. This is because I'm not someone with a rabid hardline attitude to it who thinks you can draw straight dividing lines between two very grey areas. BTW: During your scattergun approach to removal, you chopped out GnomeBaker from the List of GNOME applications -- a project that is explicity described by its own developers as "the best CD/DVD burner for the GNOME desktop". So you'll have to excuse me if I'm slightly dubious about your judgement on this matter, given your record and hardline approach. However, The GIMP entry in this article is one I've always found slightly dodgy since, although it uses GTK, it has always explicitly eschwed GNOME integration (unless I'm misinformed and/or something has changed recently). Anyone would be hard pressed to defend including it in an article specifically about GNOME, as a GNOME app. Find a link showing that attitude from a GIMP developer, and you can remove it from the list without me reverting it and with no quarrel at all. I'll even give you a guarantee that as long as I'm watching the article I will not let anyone add it back in (unless the attitude of the GIMP developers changes... obviously).
I'm not reverting this for the time being simply to see if any commentary is generated opposing the move. if it isn't, I'm removing those entries and reworking the article to reflect a position which has so far only been opposed by one person. -- If you want to remove an entry because you say it has no connection to GNOME beyond GTK and you can supply a good authoritative link to show that... (for example: a link in which the developers explicity state that they want nothing to do with anything other than GTK), I will agree to that. If you remove any entry just because you are bringing back your GNOME CVS nonsense, or just because you it doesn't match some odd demand. I will revert it and we will be back to square one.
And having previously stated that you think GTK apps are GNOME apps by definition anyway, even baiting me into providing proof for you is disingenuous. -- what? I haven't baited you into anything. I've asked you to define why you think they are not GNOME apps. Your main argument was that they weren't in "GNOME CVS". I've tried to get you to divide your arguments into sensible chunks so that we could make some progress... I repeatedly said that you can make arguments about an application being GTK-only if you like. Furthermore, I stated an opinion on the talk page about one point of view regarding GTK and GNOME that I find appealing (mainly due to the fact that it would shut up whiners who seem to have noting better to do than endless and mostly outdated arguments over GTK vs GNOME) ... namely that since lots of GNOME work has been (for good dependency purposes) pushed down into GTK, it makes pure GTK applications de facto GNOME apps. It's not a deeply held belief; it wasn't used as part of the argument earlier; and if an application explicitly integrated itself with another GTK-based desktop (say, XFCE) and explicity said it was not having anything to do with GNOME then I wouldn't dream of calling it a GNOME app. It wasn't a slip-up... it was a fairly mild statement on a subject (GTK vs GNOME) that I care little about at the best of times and consider the domain of over-zealous crackpots with way too much free time and lack of perspective. I haven't personally tried to push it into the article or onto you. If you read back over the threads carefully, you'll see this.
All the things I removed fail the bonobo+capplet test as well, so if you're truly being objective then you have to let them slide on your own terms.
Fail the bonobo/capplet test? Hardly. One of the Abiword developers said this: "AbiWord is depending more and more on GNOME technologies." As I said, I didn't add most of the entries in the list (I can't swear I didn't add *any*, but I don't remember it if I did)... but I'm not going to let you remove any without a good argument on your side, and just on your say-so that the project wants, or has, no connection with GNOME. You want a straightforward statement of where I stand now for the sake of just making some progress, OK: Find an authoritative statement from an app listed here (or List of GNOME applications that explicity eschews any conenction with GNOME or its technology (for example: it wants to be an XFCE app), and you can remove it without any quarrel from me.

[edit] GNOME applications

I've rewritten the introduction to this section -- I don't believe it was ambiguous before, but now it is explicit. I am still open (as I have been all along) to discussion regarding whether the list contains apps that explictly regard themselves as completely uninvolved with GNOME and do not use GNOME technology in any way. The GIMP being one particular example. - Motor (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I should also add here, before Chris decides to restart his little edit war, that he hadn't even bothered to carefully check the facts for his original edit. At least two of the apps he tried to remove under the banner of not being GNOME applications: Gnumeric and RhythymBox have their websites on gnome.org, keep their code in GNOME CVS and closely associate themselves with GNOME (if not outright declare that they are GNOME apps) on their websites. So basically, by even his own strictest definition, they are GNOME apps.
http://www.gnome.org/projects/rhythmbox/
"Rhythmbox is an integrated music management application, originally inspired by Apple's iTunes. It is free software, designed to work well under the GNOME Desktop, and based on the powerful GStreamer media framework."
http://www.gnome.org/projects/rhythmbox/development.html
"Rhythmbox is maintained primarily in the GNOME CVS."
http://www.gnome.org/projects/gnumeric/
"The Gnumeric spreadsheet is part of the GNOME desktop environment: a project to create a free, user friendly desktop environment."
So much for me wasting your time, Chris.
In addition to this, he was also removing Grip from List of GNOME applications page -- when the Grip homepage says: "Grip is a cd-player and cd-ripper for the Gnome desktop."
I've already (further up this tedious thread) mentioned a similar situation with GNOMEBaker
Liferea: "tries to fill this gap by creating a fast, easy to use, easy to install news aggregator for GTK/GNOME."
Alexandria "Alexandria is a GNOME application to help you manage your book collection." this had to come out of google cache because it's site appears to be blank now.
Beagle -- "Beagle requires some Gtk and Gnome libraries for its internal working" -- it also keeps it's code in gnome cvs.
GnomeSword -- "Gnomesword is a Bible study application for GNOME"
I kinda lost interest in investigating much further than that. His edit was hopelessly ill-informed, wrong and not even consistent across the two articles, or with his own stated reasons. However, I still keep my offer open -- if he wishes to find a GTK application in the list on either article that explicitly distances itself from GNOME, then he is welcome to remove it provided he includes the proof. - Motor (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


The GIMP is also kept in GNOME CVS (http://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/gimp/) (anoncvs.gnome.org and anoncvs.gimp.org are the same server).
I have run into the problem of defining a GNOME app before, I think this is an interesting discussion, perhaps we could try to reach a consensus on what constitutes a GNOME (or KDE or Window) application ? - Karderio 12:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The thing about The GIMP is that (at least the last time I checked, which was ages ago) it ruled itself out of involvement with GNOME -- which IMO, would be a very good reason for removing it from the list. A couple of days ago I tried to start some kind of discussion for thrashing out a basic set of guidelines for including an app on Talk:List of GNOME applications. Views welcome. - Motor (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GNOME WikiProject

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)


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)
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)

[edit] What exactly can be put in the GNOME category ?

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)

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)
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)

Bold text

[edit] Pronounciation

Is it pronounced as in "Garden gnome" or as in "Genome project"? Thanks. PizzaMargherita 21:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Neither. The official pronunciation is given in the third paragraph ("guh-nome"). It is increasingly being both pronounced with a silent G and written as "Gnome" rather than GNOME, but this is still unofficial at this time. Chris Cunningham 09:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
He raises an interesting point though. The official pronunciation is opaque to the point of being useless for the average reader -- although obviously the IPA version should be included. To make it easy to read and quickly understand, the introduction could include a simple "guh-nome" style description too. - Motor (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not written to cater to the lowest common denominator. IPA is used exclusively everywhere else precisely because cruder forms of phonetic spelling are inconsistent and look amateurish. In this particular case the user simply hadn't read the article in the first place. Chris Cunningham 11:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Can you read IPA? I cannot... if that means I belong to the lowest common denominator, so be it. I'm not suggesting that the IPA be removed, merely that it be supplemented by an easier to grasp note that the "G" in GNOME is hard... given that it is a very common mistake. - Motor (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
That would be redundant. Chemistry articles seem to get by fine using equations even though there are people who might not understand them. Certain areas of ambiguity are best handed with formal notation, and the article looks amateurish if this is padded with lay explanations.

Sorry, I had completely missed it in the article. I agree that IPA is the way to go. Also, I think what was intended by "guh-nome" is really /gˈnəʊm/, not /gəˈnəʊm/, but I may be talking rubbish. Also it would be nice to add the alternative unofficial pronounciation used by (I think) lots of people (genome). PizzaMargherita 11:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard it pronounced as "genome". Regardless, there is an official pronunciation, which means that there is a definite right-and-wrong answer to this.
Ok. But speaking of shortcomings of "cruder forms of phonetic spelling", how can we know that by "guh-nome" they meant /gəˈnəʊm/ and not /gˈnəʊm/? Do you really pronounce it /gəˈnəʊm/? PizzaMargherita 17:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I pronounce it with a silent G, but that's not relevant ;) If the IPA given is incorrect it should be changed, but IPA is still the sole preferred format for pronunciation guidelines. (in fact, you're probably right about the IPA being wrong just now, it's just a case of tracking down an unambiguous source.) Chris Cunningham 09:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
What's the source of your pronunciation? /gəˈnəʊm/ is markedly British. I've always thought the official pronunciation was /gə'nom/ (not /'d​͡ʒinom/ = "genome"). Diphthongal O doesn't exist in American Standard. gejpolak 15:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style guidelines

I assume you mean this bit, Motor:

"State the obvious

State facts which may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader. Usually, such a statement will be in the first sentence or two of the article. For example, consider this sentence:

   * The Ford Thunderbird was conceived as a response to the Chevrolet Corvette and entered production for the 1955 model year.

Here no mention is made of the Ford Thunderbird's fundamental nature: it is an automobile. It assumes that the reader already knows this—an assumption that may not be correct, especially if the reader is not familiar with Ford or Chevrolet. "

This is an article about a Free Software desktop available exclusively to technical or Linux-based users. If "Linux distribution" is not to be expanded then "LiveCD" shouldn't be. And I hate this incessant need to continually insert Windows comparisons into Free Software articles as if to buff them up. LiveCD is linked, and that's all that is necessary on an article which isn't actually about operating systems. Chris Cunningham 11:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Chris, We mention that LiveCDs are available, so we give an explanation of what they are and what they do. Explaining technical terms is what writing a good article is all about. Removing the LiveCD explanation on the grounds that other terms are not explained makes no sense. If you want to add a small amount of explanation for "operating systems" or "Linux distributions" (which is really part of operating systems)-- go ahead. It will improve the article providing it is not too detailed and explains things just enough to allow the average reader to understand how it applies.
The average reader is not the lowest common denominator. The term "LiveCD" is a familiar piece of jargon to technical or Linux users, has its own article, and if the rule above were applied everywhere then it would be to the detriment of the encyclopedia.
You might also like to read this before continuing. "Linking" to a subject is no good for a printed version of this article and the style guidelines are quite clear that it is desirable for an article to be as self-contained as possible.
This is an excuse for lazy, prattling articles full of redundancy. A prime example would be the Linux article, which until recently was about twice as long for exactly no gain.
the mention of Microsoft Windows is to make it clear for the many windows users... who are in the majority... that it can be used without changing their system. Buffing it up has nothing to do with it.
GNOME was not intended to be used by people "without changing their systems". That it *can* be is not an excuse to go off on a tangent in the middle of the article, especially when said tangent was simply advocacy ("go use GNOME! You don't even need to uninstall Windows!")
This is an article about a Free Software desktop available exclusively to technical or Linux-based users. -- you are very, very wrong about that. The GNOME desktop is explicity not aimed at technical users, and it works across a variety of platforms many of which have been depployed in businesses.
Not every article on Free Software has to include advocacy. That it is aimed at a certain audience does not mean the article has to be an advert
Similarly, this article is not aimed at a technical audience, but rather a general readership. If it falls short of explaining certain jargon terms... then you are more than welcome to expand it with that in mind. Chopping out useful and relevant context and relying on links does not improve it. - Motor (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
This article isn't "aimed" at anyone currently. Aiming implies that some direction is being taken. That said, when I look at it you're probably right, so a quick nod in the right direction at the expense of Yet More Distro Listing should be fine. Constantly just firing off reverts is not helping, though. Please try to be less antagonistic in the first instance. Chris Cunningham 14:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Chris, this is not helpful. This article isn't "aimed" at anyone currently. -- yes, it is. It is aimed at the general reader. Whether it is doing that job well, is open for debate and improvement. You have not addressed the concerns regarding jargon, and the style guidelines. Other articles referencing livecds are not the issue here -- they should be explaining what they are and themselves aiming to better follow the best practices of Wikipedia style. Your argument that I should fix those is not relevant. Your breaking of this article to be like those, and expecting me to fix those is cart-before-horse. You had concerns that "Linux Distribution" as "Operating system" were not explained: as I said above, you are welcome to explain them succinctly in this article if you wish, as it would be an improvement. But as things stand, you want to remove relevant, valuable information that furthers this article's purpose as an encylopaedia article. Furthermore, I hope you note that I did not revert your original edit. I agreed with much of it re: platforms. I merely redid it to avoid removing the short explanation of what a LiveCD is. Please check it again if you doubt my word. Thank you. NOTE: I have removed the Windows reference... it seems to be a contentious point for you, and it is a minor issue for me. - Motor (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I already committed an edit which incorporated a quick explanation. Compared to the status quo the only thing that's been removed now is a needless listo-distros. Please check if this is alright.
As for the "Wikipedia style", the section I quoted is just as valid as yours, and I am perfectly capable of (and qualified to) follow basic stylistic guidelines. There's no need to bicker over this. Chris Cunningham 15:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I already committed an edit which incorporated a quick explanation. -- the explanation was too short, in my opinion. I have restored it... however, I do see your point about a list of LiveCDs. I have removed them and now only the official GNOME LiveCD is restored. I am unsure of what bickering you keep referring to. You edit summaries are somewhat abrasive, but I am attempting to reach a consensus here Chris. Your original edit was not reversed as you seemed to be claiming. Can we agree, at least, on that? - Motor (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Cool, although I've going to swap some clauses in there. Sorry, got a habit of getting hot-headed on here as you can probably tell.
Well... I've gotten angry myself more than once. IMO, this edit made the article more readable without losing anything and was a definite improvement. Thank you. - Motor (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/n/o/Talk%7EGNOME_Archive3_77e5.html"