The GNOME project: a case study of open source, global software development
Abstract
Many successful free/open source software (FOSS) projects start with the premise that their contributors are rarely colocated, and as a consequence, these projects are cases of global software development (GSD). This article describes how the GNOME Project, a large FOSS project, has tried to overcome the disadvantages of GSD. The main goal of GNOME is to create a GUI desktop for Unix systems, and encompasses close to two million lines of code. More than 500 individuals (distributed across the world) have contributed to the project. This article also describes the software development methods and practices used by the members of the project, and its organizational structure. The article ends by proposing a list of practices that could benefit other global software development projects, both FOSS and commercial. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
By 2003, GNOME had almost two million lines of code and more than 500 collaborators distributed worldwide.
“Hacia 2003, el escritorio sumaba casi dos millones de líneas de código y más de 500 colaboradores distribuidos en el mundo(German, 2003).”
From Desarrollo Floss y gobernanza de pares: el caso del entorno de escritorio Gnome (2020) · cites this paper as German, 2003
The GNOME project was organized into four main module groups: required libraries, core applications, secondary applications, and others.
“El proyecto se organizó en cuatro grupos principales de módulos: (a) bibliotecas requeridas (como las de interfaz gráfica, impresión, procesamiento XML, CORBA); (b) aplicaciones principales (como sus applets, un editor, un administrador de ventanas y configuración); (c) aplicaciones secundarias y (d) otros (varias docenas de módulos y aplicaciones no pertenecientes al núcleo de GNOME)(German, 2003”
From Desarrollo Floss y gobernanza de pares: el caso del entorno de escritorio Gnome (2020) · cites this paper as German, 2003
Some modules may have an unofficial sponsoring firm that employs paid developers to do the work.
“Algunos pueden contar con una firma patrocinadora no oficial, que emplea desarrolladores pagos para realizar el trabajo(German, 2003).”
From Desarrollo Floss y gobernanza de pares: el caso del entorno de escritorio Gnome (2020) · cites this paper as German, 2003
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 18 · Cited by 169
- Authors
- German, D. M.
- Venue
- Software Process: Improvement and Practice
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-10
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 201-215
- ISSN
- 1077-4866 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1670
- OpenAlex
- W2039785095
- Cited by
- 169
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 21.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Software Process Improvement and Practice (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Concordia University of Edmonton
- Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
- Keywords
- open source software, distributed software development, software development practices, project organizational structure, free software projects, software process improvement
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
