Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PC-BSD Is Developing Its Own Desktop Environment

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

  • #11
    Originally posted by grndzro View Post
    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.
    You're right. While we're at it, let's write our own Linux-specific display servers. We did create our own Linux-specific sound system in the past, so why not?

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by nslay View Post
      You're right. While we're at it, let's write our own Linux-specific display servers. We did create our own Linux-specific sound system in the past, so why not?
      Because linux is at the same point in it's development as it was 10 years ago.....You are living in the past.
      Linux is at the cusp of becoming a mainstream operating system. That wasn't the case even 2 years ago.

      If so many people weren't so dead set on expressing their independence by going against the grain Linux would have taken off many years ago. Instead we have had to deal with Windows crap for 3 OSes too long.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by grndzro View Post
        Because linux is at the same point in it's development as it was 10 years ago.....You are living in the past.
        Linux is at the cusp of becoming a mainstream operating system. That wasn't the case even 2 years ago.

        If so many people weren't so dead set on expressing their independence by going against the grain Linux would have taken off many years ago. Instead we have had to deal with Windows crap for 3 OSes too long.
        Your post says it all. You're the arrogant ones and have been all along; not BSD. There's the Unix-like community and then there's Linux.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by nslay View Post
          You're right. While we're at it, let's write our own Linux-specific display servers. We did create our own Linux-specific sound system in the past, so why not?
          Lets not. Systemd is as is, because BSD has older interfaces and lack any serious initiative to stand up and catch up. If BSD don't see any advantage, they can leave it be. If there is conflict between a piece of software, those with higher marketshare, higher income, higher man/hour resource will drive it, in opensource. That is the case with udev.

          ALSA happened not because they wanted Linux-specific, but because it become proprietary and Linux contributors saw it as a danger. In the end, it only benefited. If you want - take ALSA and modify it for BSD. But BSD is not doing it because they are limited on resources and limited on interest and its better this way. If tomorrow OSS decides to close down or turn into proprietary at-key shelf-solution (BSD-based hardware with own proprietary OSS stack in a black box, like PS4), then BSD will be without sound at all. Then something will be changed or not, and your phrase above will shift.

          The real question is - why are they not taking LXQT, aka ex-Razor?
          They want their own DE which they think differs from existing solutions or want to duplicate for the reason of fun, then so will it be.

          Calm down and do what you consider right. That simple.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by nslay View Post
            Your post says it all. You're the arrogant ones and have been all along; not BSD. There's the Unix-like community and then there's Linux.
            Calling BSD Unix shows how little you know.
            BSD diverged so far from Unix after the rewrite that it is a completely different OS that uses Linux for the majority of it's advancment.
            It isn't being arrogant, it's being practical. Open source is in general too fragmented.

            FreeBSD has little or no aspirations toward becoming a mainstream operating system. The work needed to make it competitive with Linux should be devoted elsewhere.
            FreeBSD has a lot of things going for it but being a desktop is never going to be one of them. They should make a framework rather than a desktop. It would be more productive and in line with what freeBSD has become.

            Comment


            • #16
              Okay, so a few things...
              1: This is BSD you guys, not Linux, and if it ever does become Linux as well then that would mean that it had overwhelming success and popularity.
              2: If you used PC-BSD you'd know the status of the DEs and why this is freaking awesome for the BSD community. Think of it like if the linux DEs were all Windows ports.
              3: Do you guys hate people so much that you want them to just fail?
              Last edited by profoundWHALE; 24 April 2014, 03:01 AM.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by xeekei View Post
                I haven't used PC-BSD, but this might be a "that's it! screw it!" reaction. Maybe all DEs just doesn't work very well on BSD, since pretty much all of them are made with Linux in mind? With systemd (and by extension logind), maybe Linux finally ventured far away enough from likeness with BSD that a new DE is needed?
                KDE is apparently going to use systemd for session management in the future. Given that BSD doesn't support it currently, it makes sense they'd be looking at alternatives.

                Originally posted by brosis View Post
                ALSA happened not because they wanted Linux-specific, but because it become proprietary and Linux contributors saw it as a danger. In the end, it only benefited. If you want - take ALSA and modify it for BSD. But BSD is not doing it because they are limited on resources and limited on interest and its better this way. If tomorrow OSS decides to close down or turn into proprietary at-key shelf-solution (BSD-based hardware with own proprietary OSS stack in a black box, like PS4), then BSD will be without sound at all. Then something will be changed or not, and your phrase above will shift.
                If OSS went proprietary, then it's not like BSD would have to stop using it; they'd just fork it and keep going. Worst case scenario, it's unsupported until someone picks up the slack.
                Also, I'm pretty sure the reason BSD isn't interested in porting ASLA is because it's a steaming pile of buggy crap compared to OSS4. Pretty much everyone I know who has to work with ALSA drivers feels that way about it.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by mendieta View Post
                  Meaning, software as a hobby is awesome, but the power of Open Source is precisely cooperation and access to the code, rather than hobbyism.
                  No, just no.

                  Originally posted by mendieta View Post
                  So, you need a company to produce a polished product.
                  This affirmation is shameful.

                  Originally posted by mendieta View Post
                  The main partners for this have been IBM on the big Iron in the early years, and later Intel, Google certainly, and very many other corporations.
                  Do they have your best interests in mind? I doubt it.

                  Originally posted by mendieta View Post
                  Let the hackers keep having fun, forking away, creating, recreating, failing and succeeding. It's all good.
                  Do you really want it? It sounds like you don't.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by brosis View Post
                    Lets not. Systemd is as is, because BSD has older interfaces and lack any serious initiative to stand up and catch up. If BSD don't see any advantage, they can leave it be. If there is conflict between a piece of software, those with higher marketshare, higher income, higher man/hour resource will drive it, in opensource. That is the case with udev.
                    Rumours go that udev is going to be replaced in the near future. Maybe with something that is going to be integrated into SystemDOS. Source: 'FreeBSD graphics' website.

                    ALSA happened not because they wanted Linux-specific, but because it become proprietary and Linux contributors saw it as a danger. In the end, it only benefited. If you want - take ALSA and modify it for BSD. But BSD is not doing it because they are limited on resources and limited on interest and its better this way. If tomorrow OSS decides to close down or turn into proprietary at-key shelf-solution (BSD-based hardware with own proprietary OSS stack in a black box, like PS4), then BSD will be without sound at all. Then something will be changed or not, and your phrase above will shift.
                    The OSS that FreeBSD uses is independently maintained and developed by the FreeBSD group.

                    The real question is - why are they not taking LXQT, aka ex-Razor?
                    They want their own DE which they think differs from existing solutions or want to duplicate for the reason of fun, then so will it be.

                    Calm down and do what you consider right. That simple.
                    Here I have to agree with you. I bet LXDE-Qt (or as I like to call it 'LAXOR' pronounced similarly to 'laser') is going to be a great alternative to KDE that is also based on Qt. I don't know, only time will tell how things will work out. I'm thinking they might incorporate some stuff from the LXDE camp in their DE.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by rdnetto View Post
                      KDE is apparently going to use systemd for session management in the future. Given that BSD doesn't support it currently, it makes sense they'd be looking at alternatives.
                      As far as I understand, KDE5 should be way more modular than the previous iteration. It could be possible to yank the systemd module(s)/dependencies out of the DE.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X