Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 24th Apr 2014 23:06 UTC, submitted by sheokand
PC-BSD

The PC-BSD project is developing its own desktop environment from scratch! The ultimate plan is for Lumina to become a full-featured, open-source desktop environment that may ultimately replace KDE as its default desktop environment.

A Phoronix reader, Ryan Bram, wrote in to share word on this new desktop environment being developed by the PC-BSD crew, the popular desktop-focused derivative of FreeBSD. This new desktop is called Lumina and is being developed as a home-grown desktop environment catered toward this BSD operating system.

While it's obviously cool, I wonder if it's a wise idea to undertake such a huge endeavour. I honestly doubt PC-BSD has the developers, testers, and users required for creating, maintaining, and improving an entire desktop environment.

Thread beginning with comment 587566
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: It actually makes sense
by hobgoblin on Fri 25th Apr 2014 15:36 UTC in reply to "It actually makes sense"
hobgoblin
Member since:
2005-07-06

IMO, Systemd is the real problem. It seems to pretty much be only built for one user (Red Hat) and for one purpose, rapid boot.

Best i can tell, this so that RH can be used to spin up server instances in cloud services similar to Amazon EC2.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: It actually makes sense
by shmerl on Fri 25th Apr 2014 18:20 in reply to "RE: It actually makes sense"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Systemd is not a problem for Linux. But it's not portable to BSDs or Solaris / illumos for example, so for them it's a problem if systemd becomes a hard dependency for the desktop environment like KDE or Gnome and etc.

Edited 2014-04-25 18:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: It actually makes sense
by Soulbender on Sat 26th Apr 2014 07:48 in reply to "RE: It actually makes sense"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I think it's because now that everyone has (finally!) realized what a enormous clusterf--k SysV init is RH needs something else that is "enterprise" (another world for "overly complex and complicated") to woo their customers.
As much as I dislike SysV init, systemd is an even worse solution. Jesus, all we need is service management and that was solved years ago in daemontools/runit (and even Upstart) by running the daemon in the foreground. No need for this cgroup nonsense to track daemons that "backgrounds" and blah blah blah. Just write your daemons correctly to begin with.

Edited 2014-04-26 07:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: It actually makes sense
by Morgan on Sat 26th Apr 2014 17:54 in reply to "RE[2]: It actually makes sense"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

So what existing init do you like? Or should I say, what existing init do you hate the least?

Personally I'm partial to the BSD-style init that Slackware uses; I just "get it" but that may be because I've been using Slackware off and on since around 1999.

Reply Parent Score: 3