Linked by Howard Fosdick on Sat 7th Jun 2014 00:53 UTC
Xfce Over the past several years, mobile devices have greatly influenced user interfaces. That's great for handheld users but leaves those of us who rely on laptops and desktops in the lurch. Windows 8, Ubuntu Unity, and GNOME have all radically changed in ways that leave personal computer users scratching their heads.

One user interface completely avoided this controversy: Xfce. This review takes a quick look at Xfce today. Who is this product for? Who should pass it by?
Thread beginning with comment 590389
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
tylerdurden
Member since:
2009-03-17

Honestly, that's more an issue of the BSD folks IMO; the source is there.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

Honestly, that's more an issue of the BSD folks IMO; the source is there.


I'm not sure it is that easy. Sure, the source of the Linux kernel (which is a primary dependency) is there, but the BSD kernels are different. Maybe it's even impossible to implement certain things which are too specific (cgroups, u{dev,disk,power,whatnot}). Remember that it's not just about porting or patching simple things - Xfce depends on many kernel functionalities and also system services that do not exist in BSD. And imagine the fun if systemd becomes a required dependency... ;-)

Maybe it's even about "wasted work". Take HAL for example. BSD was lacking behind in HAL support when it became a major dependency of KDE, Gnome, and X itself, often together with DBus. When it started working reliably, it had been obsoleted in Linux already, which moved on to the "u* framework". Still HAL stuff is stuck in many components of the system which has to kept working, or a massive loss of functionality would appear. There probably has to be some reasonable judgment about "if it's worth the trouble". It could also happen that a fork is being created, free of the "Linuxisms", probably lacking certain functions for some time until they get re-implemented in a BSD-specific or even generally portable manner.

But those are just my individual assumptions. If you are interested in details, you should contact the BSD folks directly.

Reply Parent Score: 6

coreyography Member since:
2009-03-06

Perhaps all these DEs should just quit claiming compatibility with "Unix-like OSes" and just say "Linux".

The BSDs have several issues:

1. Less manpower than Linux working on this stuff, especially when you're not talking about FreeBSD;

2. The rapid changing of Linux's interfaces (the hal/*kit/u*/systemd saga someone referred to is an example), especially when it is felt by some in the BSD community that this is a result of not of enough thought and proper engineering up front causing a lot of "scrap and start over" later on.

At least one BSD distribution (PC-BSD) felt that the Sisyphean task of implementing frequently-changing Linuxisms just to make DEs work is not worth the effort, and is building its own DE (Lumina).

Reply Parent Score: 4

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

1. Less manpower than Linux working on this stuff, especially when you're not talking about FreeBSD;

2. The rapid changing of Linux's interfaces (the hal/*kit/u*/systemd saga someone referred to is an example), especially when it is felt by some in the BSD community that this is a result of not of enough thought and proper engineering up front causing a lot of "scrap and start over" later on.


I think these two are actually related. ie, because there are so many people working on Linux, often independently, and they all want to have something working, so they have to design on the fly and get it out there. This results in a lot of implicit test-by-use which hurries up the scrap-and-redesign cycle.

Reply Parent Score: 5

demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

Perhaps all these DEs should just quit claiming compatibility with "Unix-like OSes" and just say "Linux".


2. The rapid changing of Linux's interfaces (the hal/*kit/u*/systemd saga someone referred to is an example), especially when it is felt by some in the BSD community that this is a result of not of enough thought and proper engineering up front causing a lot of "scrap and start over" later on.

At least one BSD distribution (PC-BSD) felt that the Sisyphean task of implementing frequently-changing Linuxisms just to make DEs work is not worth the effort, and is building its own DE (Lumina).


My point, exactly!

Edited 2014-06-11 08:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2