Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FuryBSD Is A New Attempt At A Desktop Focused BSD

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by plast0000 View Post
    yall talking about why not plasma instead of XFCE. well why not LXQT instead if they are talking lightweight?
    For me at least, because it's been over 2 years since I last used LXQT and Plasma offers everything that I want in a desktop w/o having to resort to either non-KDE/Plasma applications or plugins so I don't feel any real need to use it or try it.

    Also, last time I checked (about a year ago), XFCE and Plasma both used 500-600mb of ram after boot and sitting idle for a minute. AFAICT, XFCE's transition to GTK3 made it lose a bit of it's lightweightness and put it on par with Plasma's ram usage (based on Manjaro's default XFCE and Plasma setups which are pretty bare-bones...Gnome, at the time, was in the 800mb range...only tried Manjaro's official isos).

    While a bit anecdotal and non-scientific, due to my personal results and numerous other Phoronix users posting similar numbers regarding XFCE and Plasma from different distributions and setups, depending on how one wants to interpret the results that can be taken as either "XFCE simply doesn't have the lightweight edge anymore" or "both XFCE and Plasma can be considered lightweight desktops". I go with the former and not the latter there (XFCE ain't lightweight anymore).

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by willbprog177 View Post

      ....
      I hope GhostBSD, FuryBSD and others gain some users and developers become interested in FreeBSD so we can have nice BSD things.
      So do I. Like I said the kernel is fantastic, and product competition most always makes all products in that category better. I'll continue to load it on a VM to check it our from time to time, but the last few times I tried I couldn't get it working under KVM. It's been a few years though, so I should probably spend some time to try it again.

      Comment


      • #23
        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.
        A few years back KDE reaffirmed their commitment to support all Unix like operating systems. (not only ones that have a penguin mascot). Plasma 5 runs perfectly fine on FreeBSD/TrueOS. Project Trident has KDE as an optional Desktop. In vanilla FreeBSD you can just install it with pkg install kde5

        I use Vanilla with Gnome as my daily workstation.. I find it simple and easy to modify to suit my needs as it's usually done in a very straight forward manner.. FreeBSD also has a very big selection of packages/ports you can use. I often can't find all the software I like to use on every Linux distro without resorting to random github repos sometimes I need 4 or more from different sources.. I tend to use Gentoo but OpenSuSE and Ubuntu have the same problem.. in FreeBSD everything I like to use is in ports.
        Last edited by k1e0x; 11-06-2019, 01:56 PM.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by kylew77 View Post
          To those complaining about applications not working in FreeBSD, its Wine support is stellar. It doesn't support Crossover for those hard cases directly but vanilla wine works just fine for running say MS office. Only thing keeping me from using OpenBSD as my daily driver is that it doesn't support virtual box and doesn't support Wine. FreeBSD is my second favorite operating system. It has some quirks but is a solid system. I run vanilla FreeBSD with XFCE as the desktop and I wonder what this FurryBSD would get me that I can't get already in vanilla FreeBSD?
          I also run FreeBSD, and use and even contribute to Wine.

          Wine works fairly well, but it could still do a better job on FreeBSD. Quite a few unit tests fail. 16 bit applications don't seem to work for me, will probably have to dig into the kernel for that. And at some stage I must patch Wine's dlls/ntdll/directory.c to support case-insensitive ZFS filesystems better, so it avoids the slow readdir() of every file that is other necessary.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by dacha View Post

            I also run FreeBSD, and use and even contribute to Wine.

            Wine works fairly well, but it could still do a better job on FreeBSD. Quite a few unit tests fail. 16 bit applications don't seem to work for me, will probably have to dig into the kernel for that. And at some stage I must patch Wine's dlls/ntdll/directory.c to support case-insensitive ZFS filesystems better, so it avoids the slow readdir() of every file that is other necessary.
            In that case thank you so much for helping to make FreeBSD a first class wine citizen. For my trivial needs Wine preforms great for what I need to run on FreeBSD and am thankful that my old proprietary programs work just fine under wine on FreeBSD. Thankful for codders who understand operating system level programing better than I do!

            Comment

            Working...
            X