Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sun 10th Oct 2004 05:47 UTC, submitted by Andrew
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



"Slack has always been agnostic about DM/WM. To cut out Gnome is be no longer agnostic, which changes one of slack's selling points."
Well, maybe childish is a strong word. On the other hand, I believe you turn a technical problem into a political problem. Gnome is not being dropped because KDE is better, it is dropped because it needs too much time, while KDE usually builds cleanly. The problem I see with what you propose is this: Pat's reasons for dropping gnome support are technical. It is a technical decision. However, if you drop KDE because you dropped GNOME, that's a political decision. I'm not sure it is prudent to go the Debian way, if you take my meaning.
As someone already said this: if Pat will build KDE anyway, because he uses it, than what's the problem with sharing it?
Also: why not put some pressure on the GNOME project itself to come up with a saner solution? Maybe then, no DE would need to be dropped.
Another solution would be if someone volunteered to do the work. The GNOME guys @freebsd do an excellent work, but it is not a 1 man show, it is a team of developers. The fact that they have their own script to upgrade from 2.4 to 2.6 (2.8 is ready since september, but is not included b/c of ports freeze) means that there are some difficulties with gnome install (or in this case, upgrade) process. Or at least that's what I think, and can be wrong of course. (corrections welcome). FreeBSD has 11000+ ports, and I can't think of another port that needs its own script (there can be, I just use some 250+ ports) ... all integrate nicely into cvsup/portupgrade/portinstall method.