7 ms·

> As far as I know, none of the BSDs are packaging Gnome 3 right now. Not one of them. Don't you think that might be signaling some trouble? But is that troubl

> As far as I know, none of the BSDs are packaging Gnome 3 right now. Not one of them. Don't you think that might be signaling some trouble? But is that trouble for Gnome, or trouble for the BSDs? I suspect the affected users are a rather larger percentage of the BSD userbase than of the Gnome userbase.

meaty 14y ago
I think, being a BSD user, we're probably not concerned much about that. Gnome 3 accounts for a miniscule proportion of users. It's less relevant that Gnome 3 doesn't work on BSD to the BSD projects than Gnome if you ask me. Bad PR for Gnome would cost more than bar PR for BSD.
- bkor 14y ago
  I'm not sure why you're focussed on PR? Anyone is free to help out and ensure that GNOME runs on BSD. But if nobody spends any effort, then don't complain when it goes wrong. At the moment even the feedback is pretty bad. There is 6+ months of development all done in the open, to only hear much later that some decision made 9+ months ago had a unforseen side-effect.
thaumaturgy 14y ago
Well, both. The BSDs are inarguably falling behind when it comes to active, daily, "regular desktop" users, and a lot of that is due to the struggling they're doing with hardware support and with desktop environments. Either the BSDs are going to end up relegated for a long time to server-only OSs (arguably they already have been), or they are going to somehow commit massive resources to catch up (possibly inventing their own replacement pieces along the way), or they are going to disappear completely. And it is that third outcome that really should make anybody that cares about Linux crap their pants, because the BSDs have some very very nice architectural features and have collectively contributed a lot back to the Linux ecosystem. In some ways, they are way ahead of anything that Linux has to offer. (pf versus iptables is an easy example. I think I would weep with joy if Linux ever threw out iptables and replaced it with pf.) If the support for BSD dwindles down below a certain point, that's going to be bad for the entire Linux community too. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to be either inexperienced in either Linux or BSD and don't know any better, or they are short-sighted and don't see any reason to be concerned about the long-term viability of the other.
- takluyver 14y ago
  But even if no-one's using desktop BSD, the interesting code in it won't disappear, and neither will the people who write that code. Perhaps I'm being short sighted, but I don't see much danger to the Linux ecosystem from BSD's userbase dwindling.
  - thaumaturgy 14y ago
    Good software isn't like a real-world monument; people don't spend effort to go back and revisit it later and gawk at it. Good software either gets championed by someone, or it fades forever into obscurity. (I wrote a really amazing hack years ago ... in COBOL. Maybe you've heard of me?) Likewise, the people that are contributing to BSD right now are doing so because they believe in what they are working on. Although some of them are true cross-platform developers, many others would never make the switch. It would be agony trying to work in Linux if you're, say, Theo de Raadt. Seriously, I wonder if that might be his own personal version of hell. I use a lot of both -- Debian, an Arch-like thing, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and have for years. The only reason that I know that iptables has serious shortcomings is because I've used pf. If I had never used the BSDs, I would have no idea what I was missing out on. If I had twenty more hours in a day, I might even be tempted to make iptables more pf-like. pf is kind of my go-to for BSD cheerleading, but it shines in other core areas too. For instance, Linux is really only just now getting stuff that looks like a distributed or cluster file system; but BSD has had this for quite a while already. Heck, one of the best options for a while in this area was HAMMER, developed by one guy for his personal BSD. And if you wanted something a little bit more mainstream, FreeBSD has supported ZFS for a long time -- Linux is still catching up there. Or, there was the new malloc that OpenBSD developed a few years ago, that ended up revealing old memory-related bugs in all kinds of software (e.g. http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20080708155228&mode=flat http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=2008070815522...). There's simply no way that all those people would be doing the same kind of work in the sort of environment that Linux is fostering right now.
- danieldk 14y ago
  Either the BSDs are going to end up relegated for a long time to server-only OSs (arguably they already have been), or they are going to somehow commit massive resources to catch up Actually, with all the disdain for GNOME 3 and Unity (that I can't fully understand), I think the BSDs actually have a window of opportunity. Make or take a desktop environment that those clamoring for GNOME 2 or KDE 3 love, integrate it very well with your base system, and make a very predictable ABI, ABI, and development schedule. Now that almost everyone seems to be involved in crazy desktop experiments, such an oasis of quiet would probably attract lots of UNIX hackers. If the support for BSD dwindles down below a certain point, It doesn't exactly help that there are four major BSDs (if we don't count Mac OS X).
papsosouid 14y ago
I can choose between giving up a simple, reliable OS or giving up a convoluted and obnoxious desktop interface that is essentially indistinguishable from the competing convoluted and obnoxious desktop interfaces. Guess which one I am likely to choose.

meaty 14y ago

I think, being a BSD user, we're probably not concerned much about that. Gnome 3 accounts for a miniscule proportion of users. It's less relevant that Gnome 3 doesn't work on BSD to the BSD projects than Gnome if you ask me. Bad PR for Gnome would cost more than bar PR for BSD.

bkor 14y ago
I'm not sure why you're focussed on PR? Anyone is free to help out and ensure that GNOME runs on BSD. But if nobody spends any effort, then don't complain when it goes wrong. At the moment even the feedback is pretty bad. There is 6+ months of development all done in the open, to only hear much later that some decision made 9+ months ago had a unforseen side-effect.

thaumaturgy 14y ago

Well, both. The BSDs are inarguably falling behind when it comes to active, daily, "regular desktop" users, and a lot of that is due to the struggling they're doing with hardware support and with desktop environments. Either the BSDs are going to end up relegated for a long time to server-only OSs (arguably they already have been), or they are going to somehow commit massive resources to catch up (possibly inventing their own replacement pieces along the way), or they are going to disappear completely. And it is that third outcome that really should make anybody that cares about Linux crap their pants, because the BSDs have some very very nice architectural features and have collectively contributed a lot back to the Linux ecosystem. In some ways, they are way ahead of anything that Linux has to offer. (pf versus iptables is an easy example. I think I would weep with joy if Linux ever threw out iptables and replaced it with pf.) If the support for BSD dwindles down below a certain point, that's going to be bad for the entire Linux community too. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to be either inexperienced in either Linux or BSD and don't know any better, or they are short-sighted and don't see any reason to be concerned about the long-term viability of the other.

takluyver 14y ago
But even if no-one's using desktop BSD, the interesting code in it won't disappear, and neither will the people who write that code. Perhaps I'm being short sighted, but I don't see much danger to the Linux ecosystem from BSD's userbase dwindling.
- thaumaturgy 14y ago
  Good software isn't like a real-world monument; people don't spend effort to go back and revisit it later and gawk at it. Good software either gets championed by someone, or it fades forever into obscurity. (I wrote a really amazing hack years ago ... in COBOL. Maybe you've heard of me?) Likewise, the people that are contributing to BSD right now are doing so because they believe in what they are working on. Although some of them are true cross-platform developers, many others would never make the switch. It would be agony trying to work in Linux if you're, say, Theo de Raadt. Seriously, I wonder if that might be his own personal version of hell. I use a lot of both -- Debian, an Arch-like thing, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and have for years. The only reason that I know that iptables has serious shortcomings is because I've used pf. If I had never used the BSDs, I would have no idea what I was missing out on. If I had twenty more hours in a day, I might even be tempted to make iptables more pf-like. pf is kind of my go-to for BSD cheerleading, but it shines in other core areas too. For instance, Linux is really only just now getting stuff that looks like a distributed or cluster file system; but BSD has had this for quite a while already. Heck, one of the best options for a while in this area was HAMMER, developed by one guy for his personal BSD. And if you wanted something a little bit more mainstream, FreeBSD has supported ZFS for a long time -- Linux is still catching up there. Or, there was the new malloc that OpenBSD developed a few years ago, that ended up revealing old memory-related bugs in all kinds of software (e.g. http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20080708155228&mode=flat http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=2008070815522...). There's simply no way that all those people would be doing the same kind of work in the sort of environment that Linux is fostering right now.
danieldk 14y ago
Either the BSDs are going to end up relegated for a long time to server-only OSs (arguably they already have been), or they are going to somehow commit massive resources to catch up Actually, with all the disdain for GNOME 3 and Unity (that I can't fully understand), I think the BSDs actually have a window of opportunity. Make or take a desktop environment that those clamoring for GNOME 2 or KDE 3 love, integrate it very well with your base system, and make a very predictable ABI, ABI, and development schedule. Now that almost everyone seems to be involved in crazy desktop experiments, such an oasis of quiet would probably attract lots of UNIX hackers. If the support for BSD dwindles down below a certain point, It doesn't exactly help that there are four major BSDs (if we don't count Mac OS X).

papsosouid 14y ago

I can choose between giving up a simple, reliable OS or giving up a convoluted and obnoxious desktop interface that is essentially indistinguishable from the competing convoluted and obnoxious desktop interfaces. Guess which one I am likely to choose.