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 473815
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Sad but inevitable
by vermaden on Thu 19th May 2011 21:10 UTC in reply to "Sad but inevitable"
vermaden
Member since:
2006-11-18


The argument in favour of just focussing on Linux exclusively goes like this: why should GNOME be held back by advances in technology simply because Solaris and the BSDs can't keep up with the fast pace of development in the Linux kernel?


Are You fscking kidding me? FreeBSD can't keep up? Sorry but we had fully working kernel event driven hardware abstraction layer daemon called DEVD which handles permissions as well and also can 'do' actions based upon devices appear/disappear and more, FreeBSD has is since 5.0, what was the year then, 2003? It was already there ready to port anywhere with the MOST PERMISSIBLE LICENSE AVAILABLE, the BSD license, but what Linux idiots did? The first created HAL shit, later udev shit, latele U* shit (Udisk/Upower/U...) that still is not able to do these simple things that FreeBSD's DEVD did in 2003, and guess what, it still does and it even did not changed since then, not like in Linux where whole 'ecosystem' changes from every odd 'stable' kernel release

... and FreeBSD can't keep up? Can't keep up my ass :ASD

More by phoenix on DEVD:
http://www.osnews.com/thread?459128

Edited 2011-05-19 21:10 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 17

RE[2]: Sad but inevitable
by Delgarde on Fri 20th May 2011 01:25 in reply to "RE: Sad but inevitable"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Are You fscking kidding me? FreeBSD can't keep up? Sorry but we had fully working kernel event driven hardware abstraction layer daemon called DEVD which handles permissions as well and also can 'do' actions based upon devices appear/disappear and more, FreeBSD has is since 5.0, what was the year then, 2003? It was already there ready to port anywhere with the MOST PERMISSIBLE LICENSE AVAILABLE, the BSD license, but what Linux idiots did? The first created HAL shit, later udev shit, latele U* shit (Udisk/Upower/U...) that still is not able to do these simple things that FreeBSD's DEVD did in 2003, and guess what, it still does and it even did not changed since then, not like in Linux where whole 'ecosystem' changes from every odd 'stable' kernel release


So if BSD had all of this wonderful stuff before Linux did, why is it that it's the Linux people introducing their new Linux APIs into Gnome? Why not the BSD people?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Sad but inevitable
by vermaden on Fri 20th May 2011 04:59 in reply to "RE[2]: Sad but inevitable"
vermaden Member since:
2006-11-18

So if BSD had all of this wonderful stuff before Linux did, why is it that it's the Linux people introducing their new Linux APIs into Gnome? Why not the BSD people?


I am not a FreeBSD developer, nor a GNOME developer, but after using Linux for several years and now FreeBSD (and other systems) for several years I would say that FreeBSD developers does not jerk off too much about their code tellin' everybody how great it is and how much everybody should embrace it, like Linux developers.

They have the problem to solve, they solved it with DEVD and that's it.

None from FreeBSD team went into the GNOME mailing lists and shout 'hey look what great piece of code we have here, make it as a dependency for GNOME, its so great that You should even consider making it a dependency on Linux platforms, who cares that it does not runs there ...' *

* direct reference to what Lennart exacly did

Edited 2011-05-20 05:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Sad but inevitable
by somebody on Fri 20th May 2011 14:30 in reply to "RE: Sad but inevitable"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

and Lennart suggested just what phoenix suggested at the end of his comment. you just need to read whole talk.

define core abstraction of systemd interfaces which are later accessed by gnome and put them into small separate solution. which gives you:
- linux already has those so it just works
- makes them available for implementation in systems that do not have those options, they just need to implement their underlaying layer. but still much simpler than complete reimplementation in the way linux does them

same method as using abstract methods in programming. what is so strange about that?

IMHO, this move would be great. define abstraction to some feature that focuses on most users and you can focus on implementation that works. but, in OSes where it doesn't work, they just need to implement requirement in underlaying layer.

instead of looking at this like "everything but Linux will lose support", try looking from other side. coding by lowest possible denominator is always slow, inefficient and barely works. not to mention code is unreadable with #ifdefs and hacks.

now enter proposed abstract interfaces. all one needs to provide is basic fall back in the start and later reimplement it correctly. my mind tells me, that no one knows better how to do that better than FreeBSD developers alone. note that if this would be done in udev/devd time, FreeBSD would not need whole implementation, they'd only need to satisfy needs from devd

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Sad but inevitable
by twitterfire on Fri 20th May 2011 20:05 in reply to "RE: Sad but inevitable"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11


daemon called DEVD bla bla bla


What about GEM/TTM and KMS? What about UFS being the shittiest file system in use right now (if we don't consider fat16, ofc). ?

Linux guys created HAL and Udev and various init systems because they have the manpower and they can. After all, that is Linux about: reinventing the wheel.

BSD guys doesn't have the resources to reinvent the wheel and have thousands of software and libraries that to basically the same thing so they have to stick with only one software per task. That makes them a bit jelous. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Sad but inevitable
by J-freebsd_98 on Fri 20th May 2011 20:29 in reply to "RE[2]: Sad but inevitable"
J-freebsd_98 Member since:
2006-01-01

UFS2 not ufs; Serves quite well here; you mention jealous; quite not the case here; I review the freebsd forums and a linux forum thread titles daily so am not misinformed. As to not having resources, having a larger community and having the potential for a better desktop, correlation does not mean causation (in this case, in my opinion ... although having installed Linux distros, 4 of, and I rate them highly... but draw your own conclusions...) ...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Sad but inevitable
by pfgbsd on Fri 20th May 2011 22:39 in reply to "RE[2]: Sad but inevitable"
pfgbsd Member since:
2011-03-12


What about GEM/TTM and KMS? What about UFS being the shittiest file system in use right now (if we don't consider fat16, ofc). ?


GEM is being ported to the BSDs and before that KGI was ported. Hmm UFS ... do you really know what you are talking about? Ext2/3/4 are just hacks inspired on it and softupdates are REALLY cool!

Linux guys created HAL and Udev and various init systems because they have the manpower and they can.


I've used Hal on BSD ... is someone really proud of that? Udev is based on BSD's devfs and the init stuff is also based on stuff that has been available on the BSDs. No innovation there.

After all, that is Linux about: reinventing the wheel.


I'll take your word for that, but making the wheel squared won't help you climb stairs.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Sad but inevitable
by vermaden on Sat 21st May 2011 10:45 in reply to "RE[2]: Sad but inevitable"
vermaden Member since:
2006-11-18

What about UFS being the shittiest file system in use right now (if we don't consider fat16, ofc). ?


Shittiest You say ... interesting.

Maximum UFS2 file size is 32 PB while maximum file size for EXT3 is 2 TB only ... and UFS2 is shittiest?

I would like to also hear on which properties You have measured that impressive shittiestness ...

FreeBSD can also do not have to use UFS at all now, it can boot from ZFS pool ... and Linux has nothing even close to what ZFS offers (do not even try to maze unexperienced users with BTRFS).

Linux guys created HAL and Udev and various init systems because they have the manpower and they can. After all, that is Linux about: reinventing the wheel.


Linux developers are like monkeys that with infinite amount of time will be able to write works of william shakespeare, so linux developers with infinite amount of time will be able to write PROPERLY DESIGNED and WELL THOUGHT operating system ...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Sad but inevitable
by gilboa on Fri 20th May 2011 22:05 in reply to "RE: Sad but inevitable"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

All nice and dandy... but I fail to see you point:

Having a comparable or even better technical solution is -irrelevant- unless someone from the BSD camp stands up and implements the required support with GNOME (or any other DE for that matter).

This is FOSS 101 - not rocket science: Unless you're willing to scratch your own itch, no-one will be doing it for you...

- Gilboa

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Sad but inevitable
by pfgbsd on Fri 20th May 2011 22:08 in reply to "RE[2]: Sad but inevitable"
pfgbsd Member since:
2011-03-12

Heh... Do you really expect a decently designed OS to adopt a gross hack like systemd just to run GNOME?

NO WAY!! Keep it linux-only!

Reply Parent Score: 1