Talk:List of GTK applications/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

This discussion has been copied to Talk:GNOME. If you must continue it... please do so there. - Motor (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate applications

Considering the recent fuss over what should be listed here... I think it's a good idea to thrash out some basic ground rules for adding an item to the page. I personally think Chris' insistence that it must be an application developed in the GNOME project before it's called a "GNOME Application" to be bizarre. The example I used was Adobe insisting that people not call Photoshop a Windows application, because it's not shipped with Windows -- an indefensible position that flies in the face of the common use of such a term. However, if enough editors think that only GNOME project applications should be listed... fair enough. Keep in mind though, as I said to Chris, there's nothing stopping someone from creating another article that documents applications developed within the GNOME project. It might even be valuable. I'm just against one person deciding to repurpose this one.

In that spirit I'll start the ball rolling:

1. Must use GTK, GLIB, PANGO, ATK etc directly.
2. Must identify itself as more than just a pure GTK app and must not specifically rule itself out of GNOME technology use.
3. Do not be too exclusionary and hardline about it.

Rule #1, disallows stuff like Java apps which use SWT or Swing (I'm thinking of Eclipse and Netbeans), but not those using Java GNOME bindings. Arguably it rules out Firefox too (XUL) and possibly OpenOffice. The last time I cared to check, OpenOffice used it's own toolkit which could target GTK. Having said that, the level of GNOME integration in OpenOffice these days (with the work of Novell and Red Hat) is quite high. It's almost tempting to list it, but it'd probably be too much like hard work.

Rule #2, is there to guard against people listing apps which may use GTK but are actually part of another GTK-based desktop project. I'm thinking of XFCE, or those applications whose sole aim is to use only GTK features to get the maximum use out of GTK's multi-platform capability.

Rule #3, is there to prevent the kind of soul-sucking deathless nitpicking that still tends to happen with GTK/GNOME arguments. GNOME bloat etc etc etc... arguments that were common 5 years ago among people who think that all you need to develop software is a widget toolkit... these arguments are now only pursued by people with nothing better to do with their time. This is quite apart from the fact that a lot of GNOME developments were pushed down into GTK to allow for a better architecture and for software to benefit widely. In Talk:GNOME I used the example of GAIM, which does have hooks into things like the evo address book. This is despite the fact that it also has a version that runs on Windows and obviously has to run without GNOME stuff installed. Who cares... I've no problem with listing GAIM as both a Windows and GNOME app. SO DO NOT BE HARDLINE ABOUT IT. There are few clear dividing lines these days, so be reasonable and inclusive.

Comments? Modifications? - Motor (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Those sound like reasonable criteria for this page, but why not simply go with "must identify itself as a GNOME app" for #2? In any case, I'm worried that a "List of * applications" article is too difficult to maintain, because of the potential number of entries; even GNOME itself refers users to GnomeFiles. — LazyEditor (talk|contribs) 19:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that Balsa should no longer appear in this list since it seems to be a dead project. And replacing it with the official email client, Evolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.2.159.204 (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Goobox

I have redirected Goobox here, since the software seems non-notable. If you want to merge more detailed content into the list, here's the archived version. --B. Wolterding 17:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Official

Why there is no category including apps developed by gnome developers? Alfasst (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

unnamed topic

Anyone want to take a crack at organizing this list?

• Done! Things are now grouped by where they would most likely be placed in the GNOME menu. Nis81 19:27, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing things which aren't "GNOME apps" at this time. Programs which happen to use GTK aren't necessarily GNOME apps and some maintainers (Gaim's for instance) are explicitly opposed to their apps being thought of as part of GNOME. Chris Cunningham 11:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to keep discussion in one place... can anyone planning to discuss this matter do it here: Talk:GNOME#"GNOME Applications" - Motor (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You should not have removed those in 2006. I shamelessly move the article to List of GTK+ applications. User:ScotXW^t@lk 20:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I still can't find GLogic. Someone broke the links long ago for all the engineering software. 73.3.211.0 (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

LibreOffice is not a GTK+ app

LibreOffice integrates with underlying OS theme, be it GTK+-based or Qt-based, or generic X11 or Windows based, all dynamically selectable.[1] Its toolkit is VCL.[2] It's in this category [3], sure, but not a GTK+ app by its structure. Please see [4]. So it would be closer to truth if LibreOffice was remove from this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstaniek (talk • contribs) 22:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, LibreOffice is not a GNOME application, not even in toolkit. If no one objects, someone could just take it off the list, with the GTK applications (Abiword, Gnumeric, etc) remaining as they are. A Missing Semicolon (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it relevant to say in this list in which programming languages Tomboy and Gnote are written?

Apokrif (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)