PC-BSD Is Developing Its Own Desktop Environment

[endman]

Code quality is always Linux' strong advantage and this is backed by studies.

Feel free to post a link to those studies.

While code quality has always been the BSD's weak point. Ugly, bloated, to many gotos, to many local variables in a function and so much non-standard and shitty C functions that the losers at Berkeley created. POSIX incompatibility.

BSD trolls claim their OS is most UNIX-like which is bullshit (not that it actually matters).

Evidence:

Linux gets ported to everything ARM, Sparc etc.

BSD?? x86.

[Awesomeness]

Linux gets ported to everything ARM, Sparc etc.

BSD?? x86.

iOS is a pretty successful BSD on ARM?

[intellivision]

Because we all need another DE right?
MATE is very good
KDE is very good
Some of the others are very good.

I honestly hope it fails. I'm sorry but the Linux community needs to rally behind 1 or a few DE's.
Anyone creating a new DE at this point has a level of arrogance that the Linux community dosen't need.
Take a look at Ubuntu for an example.

I don't believe this line of thinking is beneficial in an open source environment. The Maui OS team are doing a similar thing, creating a DE from scratch on top of Qt5.
Is their project any less significant because they don't use KDE? Of course not.

[intellivision]

While code quality has always been the BSD's weak point. Ugly, bloated, to many gotos, to many local variables in a function and so much non-standard and shitty C functions that the losers at Berkeley created. POSIX incompatibility.

BSD trolls claim their OS is most UNIX-like which is bullshit (not that it actually matters).

Evidence:

Linux gets ported to everything ARM, Sparc etc.

BSD?? x86.

FreeBSD is getting 64bit ARM support in the next release, it's been posted in their quarterly report.

[grndzro]

I don't believe this line of thinking is beneficial in an open source environment. The Maui OS team are doing a similar thing, creating a DE from scratch on top of Qt5.
Is their project any less significant because they don't use KDE? Of course not.

Maui is being built with Wayland support though. IMO that is moving forward and I am looking forward to it. I am not stuck on KDE by any means. I currently use MATE(which IMO is great BTW).

[tebruno99]

I don't believe this line of thinking is beneficial in an open source environment. The Maui OS team are doing a similar thing, creating a DE from scratch on top of Qt5.
Is their project any less significant because they don't use KDE? Of course not.

I agree with this completely. So what, there is more than 1 DE. Linux people can back whatever they want. Asking all devs to drop anything interesting and support 1 DE is daft. Adding more developers to a project has reduced returns. Software development 101. More Developers != Better, Faster, Success.

Why not just let them have their fun. Maybe they want to learn. Maybe they want to offer a more simple path for others to learn. Maybe they just like building things. So what, if you like KDE use it. There was already ONE Desktop named KDE (started in 1996) when Gnome started (1999). How soon we forget how choice blooms into great things for both KDE and Gnome. If many desktops haddn't existed freedesktop.org standards would have never been created and we'd still have the old *Box vs CDE messes.

You should consider yourself blessed that someone is still interested in building/designing desktops. Otherwise the "next generation" of developers aren't going to know how to maintain the mess left by us.

Learn by Reading & Then Doing. When some moron on a forum says you can't do something, do it anyway for the better of all of us.

[Guest]

Feel free to post a link to those studies.

http://www.coverity.com/press-releases/coverity-scan-report-finds-open-source-software-quality-outpaces-proprietary-code-for-the-first-time/

What's more interesting Open Source software has much better quality than proprietary when comes to C/C++ projects.

[endman]

http://www.coverity.com/press-releas...he-first-time/

What's more interesting Open Source software has much better quality than proprietary when comes to C/C++ projects.

Yes but we have to separate Open Source from BSDs because BSD code are of very poor quality especially with OpenBSD.

Back in 2012, you mentioned in lwn that Linux had a defect/kloc of 0.127 while NetBSD 0.335. Can you comment more about that here as it's very important for trolls like Vim_User, Sergio and archibald to understand the significance.

[Awesomeness]

instead of Linux developers writing their own OSS implementation

Um ? http://www.alsa-project.org/main/ind...nload#alsa-oss

[kpedersen]

Maybe all DEs just doesn't work very well on BSD, since pretty much all of them are made with Linux in mind?

In some ways, the fact that Linux DEs have become less portable is a good thing. It means that they can be more tightly integrated with the underlying OS and thus have much more functionality added to them (Like Windows and Mac OS X which do admittedly have very successful graphical interfaces).

Whilst I am a FreeBSD user that prefers lightweight WMs I am not really bothered either way but I can understand there are a lot of BSD users who prefer DEs. For this, why don't we just polish up Gnome 2? Rather than start one from scratch. The great thing with Gnome 2 is that we wont have to worry about upstream and we can really tweak it to suit FreeBSD.

Again OpenBSD and NetBSD are significantly different from FreeBSD that we probably shouldnt try to share desktop environments or we will lose the tight integration.