3 ms·
What a remarkably dishonest argument. The example of gnome running on openbsd is precisely because the openbsd ports people patched the hell out of it to remov
by nousernamesleft 13y ago
What a remarkably dishonest argument. The example of gnome running on openbsd is precisely because the openbsd ports people patched the hell out of it to remove all the non-portable crap. Leaving a gnome with a bunch of features gone. And notice Antoine who did that work and provided that screenshot is one of the people who thinks there is no future for gnome on non-linux systems: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/10/msg00580.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/10/msg00580.html
- coldtea 13y ago>because the openbsd ports people patched the hell out of it to remove all the non-portable crap. Leaving a gnome with a bunch of features gone. Make up your mind. Was what they removed "crap" or was it "a bunch of features"?
- nousernamesleft 13y agoWhy do you present a false dichotomy? The gnome team (and presumably at least some gnome users) consider them features. Those features are implemented as non-portable crap. Saying gnome works fine on openbsd and pointing to part of gnome working only after an openbsd guy ripped out big chunks of it is just silly.
- bkor 13y agoIn the blogpost referenced here as well as another blogpost, OpenBSD and FreeBSD developers appreciate the work that Ryan has been doing. Calling everything "crap" is a bit easy. What I did learn (since today) is that we were waiting for them (*BSD) to contact us (GNOME), while once only 1 person contacted them, we got a lot of cooperation going.
- nousernamesleft 13y ago>What I did learn (since today) is that we were waiting for them (*BSD) to contact us (GNOME) Really? All the patches that were sent upstream and ignored for years wasn't contact?