Talk:GNOME Shell

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

Questions to improve article quality 2014[edit]

What is GNOME Shell?[edit]

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

How is GNOME Shell implemented?[edit]

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

Comments/Rants[edit]

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


article to day[edit]

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

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

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

Release date of GNOME 3[edit]

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

Reception[edit]

Feels biased[edit]

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

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

Removing part[edit]

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

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

esr's?[edit]

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

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

Definition[edit]

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

Javascript[edit]

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

Gnome Shell 3.8.3[edit]

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

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

Diagrams[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

redhat[edit]

" Since then Red Hat has been the main driver of GNOME Shell’s development.[37]" < redhat business model is to break so the "red hat spocialist" can fix it. This modus of operandi is very profitable and it is basically legal. Given only two factor, 1)they can do it, 2) it good for them we are about to expect more.

I getting impression some rhel documentation is intentionally misleading to make hopeless less brained or connected users who opt to use free software and not to bezahlen 5000$/y to sucking rhel HQ.

please add the info about critical Bugzilla undressed by 3y. 73.9.147.144 (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What? --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of GNOME with GNOME Shell[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was not to merge into GNOME. Clear consensus -- Whiteguru (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles are the same and cause confusion مهدی بهرامی مطلق (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. GNOME and GNOME Shell are not the same thing. GNOME includes GNOME Shell, but it is more than simply the shell. These articles should not be merged. Brian Reading (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I also oppose for the same reason as Brian. GNOME is the entire desktop environment, GNOME Shell is just its user interface. Not the same thing. Граймс (talk) 03:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As other users have mentioned, GNOME is broader than GNOME Shell. However, it might be prudent to use {{Main}} in the GNOME Shell section in addition to or instead of where it is now, and/or add GNOME Shell to the about template at the top. I assume the majority of people reading the article do not understand the distinction between the two. NoNoEsImposible (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nonoesimposible: Yes, I agree with you. You have noticed that many do not understand the difference. Please make the changes yourself and make the article better and more accurate. Thank you, friends. --مهدی بهرامی مطلق (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@مهدی بهرامی مطلق: Hi, thanks for your input, but given my current experience level with Wikipedia, I don't really feel comfortable adding GNOME Shell to GNOME's {{about}} unless multiple other editors express their feelings that it's a good idea. NoNoEsImposible (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:GNOME_Shell&oldid=1208280845"