3 ms·

The only way for me to make sense of your comments is to imagine that you're asserting not only that no-one would want to run a DE with FreeBSD but in fact that

The only way for me to make sense of your comments is to imagine that you're asserting not only that no-one would want to run a DE with FreeBSD but in fact that there is no way to run a desktop environment with FreeBSD. However, that is clearly not the case, since Xfce and KDE and so forth work on FreeBSD. Further, there is even a DE developed for TrueOS, which is FreeBSD-based: Lumina ( https://www.lumina-desktop.org/ https://www.lumina-desktop.org/ ).

boomboomsubban 8y ago
If you download a release of FreeBSD, that image will not contain a desktop environment. If you look through there source code, no desktop environment, something also true of Linux. Of course you can install third party packages, including a range of desktop environments. So, considering FreeBSD has no desktop environment, and likely little desire for one, how are they being ripped off by Apple's failure to give them their DE?
- _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
  > If you look through there source code, no desktop environment, something also true of Linux. Right, a DE is not part of the kernel, or even perhaps the base install. But DE is something people do use with FreeBSD - there are people who run DEs. > FreeBSD has no desktop environment, and likely little desire for one The development of Lumina is a BSD-associated endeavour, so the desire part does't seem quite true. > how are they being ripped off by Apple's failure to give them their DE? The DE is just an example of something that could have been useful. The point is that Apple hasn't really contributed back to FreeBSD - the real-world behaviour of large corporations highlights the drawbacks of non-reciprocal licences.
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    >Right, a DE is not part of the kernel, or even perhaps the base install. But DE is something people do use with FreeBSD - there are people who run DEs. The base install is FreeBSD, it is the code and system the team created and what the FreeBSD foundational raises money to support. If Apple ripped off FreeBSD, it would these people that are getting ripped off. You can install a wide variety of other software on your computer alongside FreeBSD, but that doesn't make them a part of FreeBSD. >The DE is just an example of something that could have been useful. The point is that Apple hasn't really contributed back to FreeBSD - As far as contributing back unrelated things that would be useful, they have contributed back LLVM. >the real-world behaviour of large corporations highlights the drawbacks of non-reciprocal licences. This wasn't real world behavior, and FreeBSD using the GPL wouldn't have forced Apple to give them their DE. A program, say a DE, on a GPL operating system does not need to be distributed under an open source license.
    - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
      > This wasn't real world behavior, and FreeBSD using the GPL wouldn't have forced Apple to give them their DE. A program, say a DE, on a GPL operating system does not need to be distributed under an open source license. Depends on how the DE integrates with the other components. Real-world behaviour: the ecosystem that has a GPL-licensed kernel has much wider adoption that the ecosystem which uses primarily BSD licences. I know this isn't fully attributable to licensing, since the BSDs were afflicted with legal issues during the time when Linux was taking off, which surely contributed to the situation, but still the BSD licences encourage certain types of entities to take without contributing back the ecosystem. Though I admire the idealism of BSD-type licences.

boomboomsubban 8y ago

If you download a release of FreeBSD, that image will not contain a desktop environment. If you look through there source code, no desktop environment, something also true of Linux. Of course you can install third party packages, including a range of desktop environments. So, considering FreeBSD has no desktop environment, and likely little desire for one, how are they being ripped off by Apple's failure to give them their DE?

_emacsomancer_ 8y ago
> If you look through there source code, no desktop environment, something also true of Linux. Right, a DE is not part of the kernel, or even perhaps the base install. But DE is something people do use with FreeBSD - there are people who run DEs. > FreeBSD has no desktop environment, and likely little desire for one The development of Lumina is a BSD-associated endeavour, so the desire part does't seem quite true. > how are they being ripped off by Apple's failure to give them their DE? The DE is just an example of something that could have been useful. The point is that Apple hasn't really contributed back to FreeBSD - the real-world behaviour of large corporations highlights the drawbacks of non-reciprocal licences.
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  >Right, a DE is not part of the kernel, or even perhaps the base install. But DE is something people do use with FreeBSD - there are people who run DEs. The base install is FreeBSD, it is the code and system the team created and what the FreeBSD foundational raises money to support. If Apple ripped off FreeBSD, it would these people that are getting ripped off. You can install a wide variety of other software on your computer alongside FreeBSD, but that doesn't make them a part of FreeBSD. >The DE is just an example of something that could have been useful. The point is that Apple hasn't really contributed back to FreeBSD - As far as contributing back unrelated things that would be useful, they have contributed back LLVM. >the real-world behaviour of large corporations highlights the drawbacks of non-reciprocal licences. This wasn't real world behavior, and FreeBSD using the GPL wouldn't have forced Apple to give them their DE. A program, say a DE, on a GPL operating system does not need to be distributed under an open source license.
  - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
    > This wasn't real world behavior, and FreeBSD using the GPL wouldn't have forced Apple to give them their DE. A program, say a DE, on a GPL operating system does not need to be distributed under an open source license. Depends on how the DE integrates with the other components. Real-world behaviour: the ecosystem that has a GPL-licensed kernel has much wider adoption that the ecosystem which uses primarily BSD licences. I know this isn't fully attributable to licensing, since the BSDs were afflicted with legal issues during the time when Linux was taking off, which surely contributed to the situation, but still the BSD licences encourage certain types of entities to take without contributing back the ecosystem. Though I admire the idealism of BSD-type licences.