I want to clarify something first. I'm not saying that KDE Plasma should be the default desktop environment on FreeBSD nor that it is or it will be the default desktop environment.
But, as part of the laptop initiative, the FreeBSD Foundation selected KDE Plasma as the desktop environment available in the updated installer for the next FreeBSD releases.
Since it is the only option available for installation in the installer, people will assume it is the default, even if it is not officially the default. And I risky to say that people not familiar with FreeBSD can and will suppose it is the only desktop environment available at all.
People always look for blessed or endorsed options, and the Foundation gave Plasma this endorsement when selected Plasma to be the only option in the installer, so again, people will assume it is the default.
But I have a question. Why have the Foundation selected as the default option a desktop environment that makes an explicit statement in its front page that is developed for Linux and set its roadmap to be Linux only?
But, as part of the laptop initiative, the FreeBSD Foundation selected KDE Plasma as the desktop environment available in the updated installer for the next FreeBSD releases.
Since it is the only option available for installation in the installer, people will assume it is the default, even if it is not officially the default. And I risky to say that people not familiar with FreeBSD can and will suppose it is the only desktop environment available at all.
People always look for blessed or endorsed options, and the Foundation gave Plasma this endorsement when selected Plasma to be the only option in the installer, so again, people will assume it is the default.
But I have a question. Why have the Foundation selected as the default option a desktop environment that makes an explicit statement in its front page that is developed for Linux and set its roadmap to be Linux only?
