+1Personally, I prefer someone be brutally honest with me rather than BS or lie to me about something. I have much more respect for that and deal with it better.
+1Personally, I prefer someone be brutally honest with me rather than BS or lie to me about something. I have much more respect for that and deal with it better.
I agree with joining forces but would suggest the focus should be XFCE4 for the following reasons:Maybe its time to join forces in an OpenZFS fashion, one GNOMEonBSD team to share similar work ... just a thought.
I've good impression which XFCE on GhostBSD. I think you're right.I agree with joining forces but would suggest the focus should be XFCE4 for the following reasons:
1) The latest, stable version of XFCE4 has been ported to OpenBSD, FreeBSD and NetBSD
2) I suspect XFCE4 BSD portability is due to an OpenBSD developer, Landry Breuil, also being a core XFCE4 developer.
3) The basic desktop has its roots in CDE and yet is very configurable, I have no problem mimicking a Windows interface or a OS/X interface.
I am using Gnome 3 on FreeBSD as a desktop right now with no issues. Why bash FreeBSD by spreading misinformation on a FreeBSD Forum?
You're also wrong about having "Obsolete" ports in the ports tree. They are useful, as they work on the system and can be used as a basis for importing later versions of the software into the system. I am not against further testing but to remove old ports simply because they are old is ridiculous and unjustified.
What is the purpose of keeping outdated GNOME (3.18) in the 'main' Ports tree instead of importing working and stable '3.26' from here:
https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-ports-gnome/tree/gnome-3.26
... as people report its stable?
Why don't modern XFCE4 but the old rusty GNOME2?If there was to be a project getting together a group of developers to re-activate Gnome 2 (not Gnome 3 or Mate) on FreeBSD and get everything working (network manager, mounting, gdm, everything!) to the level that we would expect from a commercial UNIX, then I would jump onto that like a shot!
It is simply too big of a task for a single person. Splitting tools and dependencies up (i.e maintain 5 per developer) is very feasible however.
If there was to be a project getting together a group of developers to re-activate Gnome 2 (not Gnome 3 or Mate) on FreeBSD and get everything working (network manager, mounting, gdm, everything!) to the level that we would expect from a commercial UNIX, then I would jump onto that like a shot!
It is simply too big of a task for a single person. Splitting tools and dependencies up (i.e maintain 5 per developer) is very feasible however.
If there was to be a project getting together a group of developers to re-activate Gnome 2 (not Gnome 3 or Mate) on FreeBSD and get everything working (network manager, mounting, gdm, everything!) to the level that we would expect from a commercial UNIX, then I would jump onto that like a shot!
It is simply too big of a task for a single person. Splitting tools and dependencies up (i.e maintain 5 per developer) is very feasible however.
For me KDE 3 was the best one and I am sorry that is gone.
I remember Dropline Gnome, which was based on Gnome 2, and used Xorg on Slackware at a time when Slackware was still using Xfree86.
Why don't modern XFCE4 but the old rusty GNOME2?
I am normal user of XFCE (mate is similar, different in style). Just installed CDE on 11.1-Stable box to have good old touch. Have not fired it up.If I had my way, I would go for CDE. Have you ever heard of that
I know and used Ubuntu Mate before. They're slowly migrate to Gtk3, too. Then why stick with it but now go for XFCE4? It's already GTK3 and can be configured to look like GNOME2.Haha. Perhaps tell that to these guys: https://mate-desktop.org. I am sure they would like to be notified of their metal problems too
If I had my way, I would go for CDE. Have you ever heard of that?
I know and used Ubuntu Mate before. They're slowly migrate to Gtk3, too. Then why stick with it but now go for XFCE4? It's already GTK3 and can be configured to look like GNOME2.
Yes, it's a good thing. But why wasting so much time and resource just to do something useless/meaningless? XFCE4 already GTK3 ready. GNOME2 provide a bigger set of apps but most of it broken or outdated, comparing to the modern GNOME3 ones, for example Pluma vs Gedit.Updating to Gtk3 is probably a good thing. It will allow for integration with Wayland if it ever comes along to FreeBSD.
On my desktop machines I use Xfce4 but why I am recommending Gnome 2 instead of Xfce4 is simply because it currently provides much more of a full fat desktop experience (at least on Linux. Much of it has always been broken on FreeBSD). Xfce4 is still missing a few things (because they strive to stay lighter than full fat desktops like Gnome and KDE).
Though in many ways, Xfce4 being lighter would certainly make it easier to maintain on FreeBSD if the Xfce4 developers ever go the weird and wonderful ways of Tablets and Gnome 3. And to be fair, it might be an easier task to write the additional desktop utilities from scratch for Xfce4 rather than trying to port the existing Gnome 2 ones full of linuxisms.
That said, the PCBSD guys seem to be doing good things with Lumina so we could just make sure that the port for that remains up to date with the upstream FreeBSD project.
I'm younger but have a chance to use KDE3 and I'm liked it. I still alive as a fork named Trinity, their homepage is inaccessible and google report it's hacked. I tried through a Linux distro named Q4OS and it's rocks, except some minor issues caused me switch to MXLinuxFor me KDE 3 was the best one and I am sorry that is gone.