If they are not, then why was gnome 2 removed?By the way, the most packages are not dependent on the freebsd version.
If they are not, then why was gnome 2 removed?
packages do not depend on release, gnome 2 should not have been removed completely. This is very disappointing and unfortunate that some have an urge to destroy the working software and replace it with the one that does not work.the most packages are not dependent on the freebsd version.
None of the above 2 comments answer the question. Gnome 3 is a giant failure. Gnome 2 is the last working gnome. Since according to packages do not depend on release, gnome 2 should not have been removed completely. This is very disappointing and unfortunate that some have an urge to destroy the working software and replace it with the one that does not work.
packages do not depend on release, gnome 2 should not have been removed completely. This is very disappointing and unfortunate that some have an urge to destroy the working software and replace it with the one that does not work.
Whilst I agree with you, it is unfortunately something that cannot be changed. The Gnome project died many years ago and a new project (called Gnome 3) just happens to share the same name.
I personally think it was an incorrect choice from the FreeBSD developer community to not focus on making Gnome 2 perfect and instead chasing an always broken Gnome 3 but at the same time I do not have time to actually solve that by maintaining Gnome 2 myself.
shkhln is very much correct. At this point, just use whatever crap you can get working. And if that gets destroyed by the upstream folk, just jump ship to whatever is still the most afloat XD
Nothing - not just gnome 2 or [substitute any software package out there] is being supported. There is no such thing as support in free, open source software world. Gnome 2 was functional, useful, and contained few bugs. Its UI was intuitive and user-friendly. Gnome 3 broke all of that and spat in the face of its user base, Linus included. Since then many turned to alternative DMs, KDE 4 included. Then KDE 5 came and broke almost everything. There is nowhere to run, nothing to jump to. Gnome 3 and KDE 5 are badly broken, and the res of DMs out there are half-baked, half-ass.The problem is Gnome 2 not being supported by it's upstream anymore so to keep it around someone would have to maintain it. I guess you could always resurrect it. All it takes is someone to fix bugs and keep it compatible with the current environment. It's up to you.
Both FreeBSD and Linux repos are full of obsolete software that no one uses. Just leave Gnome 2 be.
KDE 4 included
Heh, I remember that. Gnome 2 and KDE 3.5 used to be fairly evenly matched. It was the age old argument of which one was better. Then KDE 4 came out and Gnome 2 no longer had any competition. KDE was completely out of the running and Gnome 2 became *the* Linux desktop. It is only when Gnome 3 killed Gnome 2 that KDE 4 started becoming an option again because they were now both such crap offerings, they were evenly matched.
Nothing - not just gnome 2 or [substitute any software package out there] is being supported. There is no such thing as support in free, open source software world.
Gnome 2 was functional, useful, and contained few bugs. Its UI was intuitive and user-friendly.
Gnome 3 broke all of that and spat in the face of its user base, Linus included. Since then many turned to alternative DMs, KDE 4 included. Then KDE 5 came and broke almost everything. There is nowhere to run, nothing to jump to. Gnome 3 and KDE 5 are badly broken,
and the res of DMs out there are half-baked, half-ass.
Gnome 2 did not have to be erased from the repos. Just leave it there.
Those who understand user-friendly UIs would use it quietly, without bothering anyone. When a loud pronouncement on the interwebs is made that some software is "end of life" or "out of support" it does not mean that it has to be immediately erased from repos.
It would not hurt anyone by being here.
Both FreeBSD and Linux repos are full of obsolete software that no one uses.
Just leave Gnome 2 be.
Let it rest in peace would be more appropriate in my opinion but don't let that stop you. I'd love to be proven wrong. Here is the port: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/x11/gnome2/?pathrev=372767. Good luck.
user00, I don't know how much experience you have fixing broken software? For a single person it might be a fair bit of work maintaining Gnome 2. My recommendation is to distill the core components out and ditch the rest (many were never working). If you do tackle this task, make no mistake, it will be very much appreciated by the community!
If you can reduce dependencies down quite far to *just* Gtk+2 it may even stand a chance of being much easier to maintain in the future. Just bare in mind to consider things like tracking file system changes, terminal emulation and thing like that all starting to require dependencies unless you code it *all* yourself.
True, it really would be a monstrous task.
I did make a (fairly laughable) attempt in the past. The project was called "Imp" and it was really just to see if I could strip all the crap and pretty much have just the desktop (metacity, menu bars, desktop, file manager). Even this slightly small scope had to be abandoned (I gave myself a week) because everything dragged in everything haha.
Writing one from scratch would be more feasible IMO.
So, not sure why Mate` is not OK - it is a fork of Gnome 2 and my personal favorite DE. Gnome 2 died when the Gnome devs moved on to Gnome 3. Just like KDE 3 died when the KDE devs moved to KDE 4, et cetera, et cetera...
I was a heavy Gnome 2 user and tester back in the day and I really like Mate`. That's subjective though. I don't see why a resurrection of Gnome 2 would be any different than Mate` other than a name change.