Lumina Desktop Gets Its Own Media Player

[starshipeleven]

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.

Are you perhaps implying that Lumina isn't working fine on Linux? Xorg and Qt aren't different here.

[Luke_Wolf]

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.

Honestly?

it isn't that bad. It's not great, it's got fairly minimal functionality, but... it's not horrible in the way it used to be. If you can tolerate bare bones desktops like XFCE and LXDE you can tolerate Lumina. Why yes, it is developer art, but it's functional, and it is just as usable as the aforementioned. Plasma 5 is of course miles better, but you guys complain about UI far too much along these particular lines when the interface isn't actually getting in the way.

[Gusar]

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?

This is basically a GUI for a commandline Pandora client, all multimedia functionality uses existing Qt5 multimedia stuff, so there's no reinvention here.

Honestly?

it isn't that bad. It's not great, it's got fairly minimal functionality, but... it's not horrible in the way it used to be. If you can tolerate bare bones desktops like XFCE and LXDE you can tolerate Lumina.

I think uid313 is talking specifically about this application, not Lumina as a whole. And while I wouldn't use the tone he used, I have to say I agree that the GUI isn't really good. Lots of space for a small number of ui elements, I'm sure this could be organized better.

[starshipeleven]

I think uid313 is talking specifically about this application, not Lumina as a whole. And while I wouldn't use the tone he used, I have to say I agree that the GUI isn't really good. Lots of space for a small number of ui elements, I'm sure this could be organized better.

Seems like the issue was raised in the blog and the dev said that yes, this was a "functionality-only" preview and that he will work on a better UI later. https://lumina-desktop.org/1-3-0-dev...r/#comment-534

[Guest]

Are you perhaps implying that Lumina isn't working fine on Linux? Xorg and Qt aren't different here.

I hope it does, but wasn't sure. There could always be some *BSD specific bits (like Gnome and systemd integration and so on). It's always good to have more people working with Qt.

[alexcortes]

Will it run on os x?

I do not use anything Apple, however it is very well known that Apple heavy borrow from FreeBSD to their userland and network stack. You can indeed easy upgrade and expand several parts of MacOS userland (what is based on FreeBSD old ones) to the current FreeBSD, sometimes without even compiling it but just placing the binaries in the right place.

[alexcortes]

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.

As far I know plasma-shell was not a big issue to be ported to FreeBSD (almost all KDE already works without a major problem, as one can test using the area51) but PIM is currently being a hell since it moved on from webkit to webengine what currently does not compile on FreeBSD. There are zillion of symbol errors to be dealt before it compile.

The biggest problem to port was not indeed something code related but the fact there was no one to do that. It is too much work and would need at least a few people working full-time to properly do it.

https://freebsd.kde.org/area51.php

[Guest]

I do not use anything Apple, however it is very well known that Apple heavy borrow from FreeBSD to their userland and network stack. You can indeed easy upgrade and expand several parts of MacOS userland (what is based on FreeBSD old ones) to the current FreeBSD, sometimes without even compiling it but just placing the binaries in the right place.

Apple claims os x is officially UNIX now and I was wondering how much is it compatible with FreeBSD. It seems without FreeBSD os x would be dead.

[aht0]

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.

It's the opposite. BSD devs adhere to POSIX-standards (especially OpenBSD) which insures compatibility between other similar POSIX-compatible operating systems. If Linux devs want to go "beyond-POSIX" it's actually them being selfish and causing incompatibility problems for themselves. Of course it's easy to happen when most of the development happens on same platform and no thought have been given for general compatibility to anything else. It's demagogic to accuse BSD devs in something they have not caused by themselves. It's Linux which is going it's own "Windows-way"..

I noticed Lumina packages existing in Manjaro (can't remember if it was in AUR), haven't checked out if Lumina exists for OpenSUSE..