Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 19th May 2011 18:59 UTC, submitted by fran
Gnome Something's - once again - brewing within the GNOME project. While a mere suggestion for now, and by no means any form of official policy, influential voices within the GNOME project are arguing that GNOME should become a full-fledged Linux-based operating system, and that the desktop environment should drop support for other operating systems such as Solaris and the BSDs. I have a feeling this isn't going to go down well with many of our readers.
Thread beginning with comment 473788
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Meh
by barbieri on Thu 19th May 2011 20:13 UTC in reply to "Meh"
barbieri
Member since:
2007-07-30

To be more clear (and I'm not even GNOME hacker, but e17 one) non-linux systems lacks lots of desktop-interesting features (ie: udev), software stack lags behind (ie: xorg) and mainly lacks developers interested in desktop.

Sure, the second topic (lag) can be fixed if the last point is fixed (more developers). One can argue the first issue (lack of features) is not an issue but different opinions, but why the developers of the Linux front should suffer because the lack on the BSD side? This would be called priority inversion on other situations :-)

Also Linux itself is not perfect. But given developer interest we're working on making it better, see the recent commits to aid desktop use cases and even systemd: cgroups, extended vt controls, etc. They don't exist in BSD, but they didn't in Linux as well. People worked on getting them ready in Linux, while nobody cares about this in the BSD land. So why bother about BSD in the desktop land?

Reply Parent Score: 10

RE[2]: Meh
by Soulbender on Thu 19th May 2011 20:38 in reply to "RE: Meh"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I don't really care if GNOME focus only on Linux. They can do what they want. What does annoy me is that this comes after god knows how many years of listening to Linux users and devs endlessly whining about how this and that software does not support Linux. Now, all of a sudden, it's ok to fsck everyone else because *Linux* needs to evolve. A bit two-faced.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Meh
by cheemosabe on Thu 19th May 2011 20:47 in reply to "RE[2]: Meh"
cheemosabe Member since:
2009-11-29

I don't really care if GNOME focus only on Linux. They can do what they want. What does annoy me is that this comes after god knows how many years of listening to Linux users and devs endlessly whining about how this and that software does not support Linux. Now, all of a sudden, it's ok to fsck everyone else because *Linux* needs to evolve. A bit two-faced.

To everyone who is arguing that GNOME would be fsck-ing everyone other then Linux, thus being "two-faced" after all the complaints of Windows/Mac stuff not being available on Linux. You're making a hypothetical argument just for the sake of the argument.

Since when did any FreeBSD user complain about a Linux only program? They ported it themselves.

Linux users didn't complain about opensource programs on Windows. Only closed source once. Driver developers don't complain about hardware without drivers for Linux. They complain about hardware without documentation.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Meh
by nej_simon on Thu 19th May 2011 21:12 in reply to "RE[2]: Meh"
nej_simon Member since:
2011-02-11

I don't really care if GNOME focus only on Linux. They can do what they want. What does annoy me is that this comes after god knows how many years of listening to Linux users and devs endlessly whining about how this and that software does not support Linux. Now, all of a sudden, it's ok to fsck everyone else because *Linux* needs to evolve. A bit two-faced.


You are comparing two different things.

You can help port gnome to whatever fringe platform you like. It's free and open source software.

But you can't do that with proprietary and closed source software. All you can do is urging the developer to release a version for your favourite platform. That's why some Linux users complain.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[3]: Meh
by gilboa on Fri 20th May 2011 22:11 in reply to "RE[2]: Meh"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

... years of listening to Linux users and devs endlessly whining about how this and that software does not support Linux


Do you somehow assume that repeating the same text over and over and over again will drive the point home (Thus far I counted 4 different instances) or are you simply trolling?

- Gilboa

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Meh
by sorpigal on Fri 20th May 2011 11:39 in reply to "RE: Meh"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

There's a big difference between not including support for systems you don't personally run and not accepting compatibility patches. Few projects promise to maintain portability absolutely but to refuse to attempt to be portable where it doesn't hurt makes no sense. Add all the Linux-specific code you like! Throw it all inside #ifdef if you have to and gracefully degrade the experience that people see on e.g. Solaris. But don't stop supporting Solaris just because, that's just mean.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Meh
by Flatland_Spider on Fri 20th May 2011 13:57 in reply to "RE[2]: Meh"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

They probably should stop supporting Solaris just to thrown Oracle under the bus. To be quite honest, I wouldn't be surprised if that was part of the strategy.

Not that I see Solaris being anything more then a headless appliance OS going forward.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Meh
by tyrione on Fri 20th May 2011 12:54 in reply to "RE: Meh"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

To be more clear (and I'm not even GNOME hacker, but e17 one) non-linux systems lacks lots of desktop-interesting features (ie: udev), software stack lags behind (ie: xorg) and mainly lacks developers interested in desktop.

Sure, the second topic (lag) can be fixed if the last point is fixed (more developers). One can argue the first issue (lack of features) is not an issue but different opinions, but why the developers of the Linux front should suffer because the lack on the BSD side? This would be called priority inversion on other situations :-)

Also Linux itself is not perfect. But given developer interest we're working on making it better, see the recent commits to aid desktop use cases and even systemd: cgroups, extended vt controls, etc. They don't exist in BSD, but they didn't in Linux as well. People worked on getting them ready in Linux, while nobody cares about this in the BSD land. So why bother about BSD in the desktop land?


Why the hell do you think OS X cares about udev? Sorry, but udev is not something OS X is lacking. Not by a long shot.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Meh
by barbieri on Fri 20th May 2011 13:17 in reply to "RE[2]: Meh"
barbieri Member since:
2007-07-30

I never said that OSX lacked udev (or as someone else wrote in this thread: inotify). I just said that instead of writing code for GNOME (KDE, E17, ...) considering that udev may or may not be available, we should all focus on the systems we use, and it's clear the majority is Linux. If there are non-Linux developers, fine, they can "waste" their time reworking the internals to make both work.

To be clear, and using your example: Why MacOSX would care about GNOME? Why GNOME would care about MacOSX?

Reply Parent Score: 2