Lumina Desktop Gets Its Own Media Player

[czz0]

Why not just use mpv? Or just make a libmpv based Qt frontend for mpv. Why reinvent the wheel when other people already made one better than you can?

[alexcortes]

Why not just use mpv? Or just make a libmpv based Qt frontend for mpv. Why reinvent the wheel when other people already made one better than you can?

Lumina is being made to strictly comply with *BSD (or more specifically FreeBSD) philosophy and design, and not something else - what include being portable.

Mpv is GPL-2.0 licensed, and not BSD, MIT, or something BSD compatible.

[profoundWHALE]

If they can make a player as good as foobar and compatible with foobar2000's existing addons... they'll have a good cult following.

[Guest]

Lumina is being made to strictly comply with *BSD (or more specifically FreeBSD) philosophy and design, and not something else - what include being portable.

FreeBSD philosophy is power to serve, so they should make Lumina portable. Linux desktop developers aren't so selfish and let you run KDE and Gnome on *BSD. They serve better it seems.

[alexcortes]

FreeBSD philosophy is power to serve, so they should make Lumina portable. Linux desktop developers aren't so selfish and let you run KDE and Gnome on *BSD. They serve better it seems.

KDE and even less Gnome (SystemD?) are portable by Unix standards, they are ported "in house" (this is why Lumina do exist) to work on FreeBSD (or anything BSD), and this also is one of the reasons of not having KDE/Plasma5 (officially) on FreeBSD yet, it is being a hell of work to port it - thanks to IX System who is supporting it.

On the contrary, a portable software like Lumina is designed to compile and run on everything following Unix standards without any major problem...

[Guest]

On the contrary, a portable software like Lumina is designed to compile and run on everything following Unix standards without any major problem...

Will it run on os x?

[Vistaus]

FreeBSD philosophy is power to serve, so they should make Lumina portable. Linux desktop developers aren't so selfish and let you run KDE and Gnome on *BSD. They serve better it seems.

Not sure if you've been paying attention but Lumina works fine (as far as fine goes, because it's not as mature yet as some other DE's) on Linux as well.

[uid313]

It looks like total shit.
Look at that terrible UI.
You can see that the developer just put together something and didn't really think it out.
There is no thought behind the UI and it doesn't follow any HIG.
Very weird and confusing UI.

[starshipeleven]

KDE and even less Gnome (SystemD?) are portable by Unix standards, they are ported "in house" (this is why Lumina do exist) to work on FreeBSD (or anything BSD), and this also is one of the reasons of not having KDE/Plasma5 (officially) on FreeBSD yet, it is being a hell of work to port it - thanks to IX System who is supporting it.

On the contrary, a portable software like Lumina is designed to compile and run on everything following Unix standards without any major problem...

Oh come on. Let's not compare very complex projects with a tiny simple media player written in Qt. It's not a matter of code portability but of project complexity and dependencies.

ZFS for example needed BSD-specific, Linux-Specific and MacOS-specific parts, and it's hardly sYsTéMd's fault.

[Luke_Wolf]

KDE and even less Gnome (SystemD?) are portable by Unix standards, they are ported "in house" (this is why Lumina do exist) to work on FreeBSD (or anything BSD), and this also is one of the reasons of not having KDE/Plasma5 (officially) on FreeBSD yet, it is being a hell of work to port it - thanks to IX System who is supporting it.

On the contrary, a portable software like Lumina is designed to compile and run on everything following Unix standards without any major problem...

lol.

I support BSD but this argument is asinine. They make the claim of it being easily portable but not intrinsically portable on their website, with the support requirement being implementing a class that is fairly likely to grow and expand over time as they grow more functionality. Furthermore TrueOS is Lumina's primary target and consequently the assumption of for example ZFS is today encoded into the applications that form Lumina's software distribution such as Insight. It is further not unlikely that the growing collection of software associated with Lumina will grow to depend upon BSD interfaces such as OSS.

Oh but that's not Lumina itself? Well it's not exactly like Plasma Shell is the part with issues being ported for KDE, Plasma Shell is portable enough that it runs on Windows. The problem... is basically everything else where OS integration is required.

Now is Lumina integrating tightly with TrueOS a bad thing? I would say no. The advantage of the BSDs is that it isn't just a collection of random portable software, but rather that system integration concerns are considered and handled, and Lumina's existence is ultimately a good thing in that respect, because they need a desktop that will take advantage of their particular capabilities, much like systemd is a good thing in taking advantage of Linux's specific capabilities.

Is portability a good thing? Sure, but it's not an end all, be all, else we would all be running java + swing applications or the like for everything, and we all know how much people like those.