Solaris 11.4 To Move From GNOME 2 Desktop To GNOME Shell

[aht0]

Well, considering GNOME 3 runs on OpenBSD, I'd say the systemd requirement is bunk. Also, there's LoginKit (https://github.com/dimkr/LoginKit) which is what Devuan uses as its logind, I believe.

OpenBSD created dummy systemd packages for this.

Gnome 3 on FreeBSD seems to be mostly stuck on 3.18, which is couple of years old. Some components are 3.24 but none appear newer.

[pavlerson]

http://bitcannon.net/post/gnome3-on-freebsd/

If you go have a good read of the freedesktop mailing lists you will see a clear problem of BSD and Solaris developers not being engaged in anything other than saying don't change anything. At some point they will have to work out doing nothing does not work long term.

It's definitely a long term issue, going back a good fifteen years or more, but it's not just lack of engagement, though. A lot of the problem is simply that the BSD and Solaris communities are *tiny* compared to those on Linux... fewer developers, fewer resources. So when the Linux-based developers build a bunch of useful new infrastructure that everyone wants to make use of in projects like Gnome or KDE, the likes of BSD and Solaris just don't have the ability to keep up with what's happening in the Linux world.

No, this is not correct. The reason BSD and Solaris does not want to change anything is not lack of developers. The correct reason is that in large scale Enterprise IT, change is frowned upon. Stability is everything. Different priorities.

In Enterprise, you have large servers (Unix, mainframes etc) that powers the entire financial system. Salaries for billions of people. What happens if they does not get salaries in time? All companies cannot do their business on time? In finance and banking, you are afraid to touch anything that works fine. "If it is not broke, dont touch it". This is why large companies runs mainframes that are decades old. It is not about performance or the latest features. It is about stability. They pay ridicilous amount of money for uptime and stability, they are not interested in performance at all.

It is the same discussion with C# vs Java. Java has complains that is an old language and very slowly (if all) gets the latest features. Whereas C# has all the latest whistles and bells and all modern functionality. The reason is that Sun has an outspoken and well known policy, that Java powers critical banking/finance servers and long support cycles is the most important. So Sun said that Java will evolve very slowly, only adding a feature if time shows that the feature was not a gimmick, but has an actual use. Slow and mature development. However, Sun said that Java will evolve very rapidly, their libraries. Because libraries is not the core language. Java powers large enterprise servers, and they have decade long support cycles. Dont change, dont touch.

OTOH, C# powers desktop. You reboot desktops all the time, and no one complains if you do that. You cannot reboot stock exchanges as easily. C# does not power large business servers, they all use C++ or Java. Never ever C#. C# is for the clients. That is why C# evolves rapidly adding all new hot functionality all the time. And that is why C# is bloated. The core Java language is small in comparison (libraries are huge, but not the core Java)

This is why BSD and Solaris and Mainframes say "dont change anything". Because they are targeted to large business servers. Not desktop, as Linux is.

[oiaohm]

No, this is not correct. The reason BSD and Solaris does not want to change anything is not lack of developers. The correct reason is that in large scale Enterprise IT, change is frowned upon. Stability is everything. Different priorities.

Really Stability claim is bogus. Not wanting change is correct. Getting rid of hald and moving to KMS was about fixing unfixable issues that causes the desktop environment of unix/linux/bsd to randomly fail. There are other parts that were causing server side stability issues as well.

Enterprise IT needs serous kick in teeth. Its like them running out of date openssl with known security flaws because it would cost them more certifying the change.

Claiming stability makes it sound like Enterprise IT is some how doing something good. Not updating and improving resulting in leaving highly flawed items in usage does not sound anywhere near as good but it is the truth of their actions.

[Vistaus]

Not updating and improving resulting in leaving highly flawed items in usage does not sound anywhere near as good but it is the truth of their actions.

Exactly. There are plenty of ATM's still running on OS/2, even though OS/2 has been dead for many years now. One chain of stores in my country is still running Windows 98, which has been dead for how long now? And those are just two examples. So they do need to go with the times.

[Vistaus]

I'll leave this bit of truth here:
browser extensions are more stable than GNOME 3 extensions as upstream does not break API very often if at all.

In that case you're an exception, but most anti-GNOME Shell people keep repeating the argument "I don't want extensions to customize my DE 'cause every little feature should be integrated!!!" yet those same users don't care that browsers don't have every feature they want either and continue to customize them...

[Vistaus]

OpenBSD created dummy systemd packages for this.

Gnome 3 on FreeBSD seems to be mostly stuck on 3.18, which is couple of years old. Some components are 3.24 but none appear newer.

I agree that, for example, Nautilus in FreeBSD appears to be 3.18.5 so it's very old, but Sound Juicer for example never had a 3.26 release and is still stuck on 3.24: https://git.gnome.org/browse/sound-juicer/refs/
And gcr is still stuck at 3.20 even (!): https://git.gnome.org/browse/gcr/refs/ (okay, latest unstable in 3.27.4 but latest stable is still 3.20)

So while a few packages maybe out-of-date in FreeBSD, not all GNOME apps/components were updated upstream the last few years so some packages are older just because there is no newer upstream release.

[starshipeleven]

This is why BSD and Solaris and Mainframes say "dont change anything". Because they are targeted to large business servers. Not desktop, as Linux is.

HAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

No.

Linux is aimed at servers and embedded, Desktop is not a priority.

[starshipeleven]

In that case you're an exception, but most anti-GNOME Shell people keep repeating the argument "I don't want extensions to customize my DE 'cause every little feature should be integrated!!!" yet those same users don't care that browsers don't have every feature they want either and continue to customize them...

More like "I'd like to be able to have normal levels of customization as available in other Linux DEs without having to install extensions that may/will break".

I mean, MATE or even XFCE have less options than KDE (the usual suspect), for example, but still much more than GNOME without the Tweak Tool and extensions.

[starshipeleven]

This is why large companies runs mainframes that are decades old. It is not about performance or the latest features. It is about stability. They pay ridicilous amount of money for uptime and stability, they are not interested in performance at all.

There is no force in the heavens and in hell that goes and forces anyone to update their systems. Many devices and businness servers are using some kind of outdated OS for the sake of running their core software.

But it's irrelevant because they are NOT accessible from outside of their own company network, and they don't care of better performance or something.

This argument is bullshit, because updating the UPSTREAM of an application or OS or anything does not affect deployed systems. This isn't Windows with mandatory updates, most database servers have total shit security anyway as they are mostly dumb appliances sitting in a secured internal network.

OTOH, C# powers desktop.

I've seen far more C# in company servers than Java. I've seen also a fuckton of Cobol programs still in use for banks and finance, and they still hire Cobol programmers here.

[Vistaus]

More like "I'd like to be able to have normal levels of customization as available in other Linux DEs without having to install extensions that may/will break".

I mean, MATE or even XFCE have less options than KDE (the usual suspect), for example, but still much more than GNOME without the Tweak Tool and extensions.

But Chromium has less features than Firefox, but no one complains about that because "there are extensions to reach the same level of functionality".