Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FuryBSD Is A New Attempt At A Desktop Focused BSD

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • FuryBSD Is A New Attempt At A Desktop Focused BSD

    Phoronix: FuryBSD Is A New Attempt At A Desktop Focused BSD

    Joe Maloney of iXsystems has lifted the wraps on FuryBSD, a new desktop BSD focused on tight integration with FreeBSD. FuryBSD joins the likes of MidnightBSD and GhostBSD on providing a sane and easy-to-use desktop experience out-of-the-box along similar lines to the former PC-BSD (TrueOS)...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...yBSD-Announced

  • #2
    I is just a tad upset that the letters K, D, and E were not used in that exact order anywhere in that article.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
      I is just a tad upset that the letters K, D, and E were not used in that exact order anywhere in that article.
      IMHO XFCE is a better fit for the BSD approach and philosophy. Besides I believe KDE is moving in the direction of integrating with systemd, like GNOME, which will make it not an option for BSD.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by jacob View Post

        IMHO XFCE is a better fit for the BSD approach and philosophy. Besides I believe KDE is moving in the direction of integrating with systemd, like GNOME, which will make it not an option for BSD.
        AFAIK, KWin can depend on systemd (optional) and that there's an optional systemd KCM plugin, but I'd be guessing beyond that.

        After doing a bit of reading before posting, I have to agree that using something like systembsd would probably be acceptable to use as a Linux to BSD desktop compat layer for any "systemd-isms" KDE/Plasma may or may not have.

        Comment


        • #5
          Well, the primary problem with BSD as a desktop OS has always been the dearth of applications. I know there are various ways you might be able to get some Linux programs running, but it's such a hit and miss, and ever changing, situation that I just don't consider it a viable OS for the average users desktop.

          I mean my goodness, Linux is difficult enough all by itself. And adding BSD on top of that just makes things an utter mess.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by muncrief View Post
            Well, the primary problem with BSD as a desktop OS has always been the dearth of applications. I know there are various ways you might be able to get some Linux programs running, but it's such a hit and miss, and ever changing, situation that I just don't consider it a viable OS for the average users desktop.

            I mean my goodness, Linux is difficult enough all by itself. And adding BSD on top of that just makes things an utter mess.
            Are you talking about proprietary Linux applications because most FOSS apps work on BSD systems?

            BSD isn't viable for me mainly because it lacks Proton and Nvidia Vulkan support. I've read that even though FreeBSD has the Nvidia driver, they wont support Vulkan on that platform.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by jacob View Post

              IMHO XFCE is a better fit for the BSD approach and philosophy. Besides I believe KDE is moving in the direction of integrating with systemd, like GNOME, which will make it not an option for BSD.
              and more importantly, xfce demands less GPU power. Gnome 3 is almost unusable as a DE without properly accelerated graphics cards.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Xaero_Vincent View Post

                Are you talking about proprietary Linux applications because most FOSS apps work on BSD systems?

                BSD isn't viable for me mainly because it lacks Proton and Nvidia Vulkan support. I've read that even though FreeBSD has the Nvidia driver, they wont support Vulkan on that platform.
                Well, like I said, Linux is difficult enough for the majority of people, and it has vast application support compared to BSD. Whether proprietary of FOSS, the fact is that BSD is sorely lacking in desktop software. And saying it supports "most" FOSS applications is relative to what applications you want to use. Even with sporadic Linux application support, which is often quite difficult to get working, and could break at anytime, the bottom line is that BSD has a long way to go before it's a viable desktop OS.

                Don't get me wrong though, I have nothing against BSD, it's just that as an embedded systems designer, musician, and occasional gamer, it simply doesn't have anywhere near the application support I need. But I'm 100% for BSD developers and enthusiasts continuing to make it better. The kernel itself is awesome, and there's no technical reason it couldn't excel as a desktop OS if it could achieve application parity with Linux.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
                  I is just a tad upset that the letters K, D, and E were not used in that exact order anywhere in that article.
                  "...des-K-top BS-D- focus-E-d..."
                  they're in there, just gotta look

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Snaipersky View Post
                    "...des-K-top BS-D- focus-E-d..."
                    they're in there, just gotta look
                    What about P L A S M A ?

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X