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 473969
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Sad but inevitable
by somebody on Fri 20th May 2011 14:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Sad but inevitable"
Member since:

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