Other Question about Lumina

Zare

Zare

I am curious about this "desktop" seeing it markets itself as BSD-first. Apart from benefiting straight development cycle where we are the primary target, not having to wait for fixes, ports etc, what actually makes it BSD fitting?

Looking at videos, the website, the wikipedia, it doesn't seem to be a desktop, marketing aside, there are differences in X11 terminology between window managers and desktop environments, and Lumina really seems to be way more on window manager side, intentionally being light and not having tight coupling with some services that may or may not run on all FOSS systems. But then, what exactly makes it FreeBSD friendly?

For example I run Plasma first and Windowmaker as fallback, but since Plasma works well through versions and updates and it's been years since I logged on to a crashed KDE, I found some good tradeoffs for its bloat in the area of system integration - one click to mount USBs, its package manager understands pkg and can perform updates without escalation/password prompt, the settings areas understand other aspects of FreeBSD, etc.

Is anything of this kind available ootb from Lumina or are there any plans to make a tightly FreeBSD integrated stuff later on?
 
Lumina was functional. Suffered from the common "not enough users to give feedback, not enough developers to move things forward and resolve bugs". Basically project was a 1 or 2 man show.
Did it work? Yes.
Was it perfect? No.
Does it have value? My opinion, yes.

BUT (my opinion) I don't think Desktop Environments are any better than a Window Manager and properly configured .Xresources.
Simple example (my opinion), how many different versions of "xterm" do we really need? lxterm, gterm, kterm, rxvt, (plus about a thousand others).
 
mer said:
Simple example (my opinion), how many different versions of "xterm" do we really need? lxterm, gterm, kterm, rxvt, (plus about a thousand others).
Click to expand...
Its a good point. Each desktop tends to reinvent the wheel. Even CDE (which admittedly is the only decent DE for UNIX-like platforms and Linux) provides a DtTerm which I end up ignoring and just using XTerm anyway.

Admittedly the code in xterm is not pretty, but I have yet to see a terminal emulator which has a perfect implementation. They are strangely complex.
 
kpedersen said:
Its a good point. Each desktop tends to reinvent the wheel. Even CDE (which admittedly is the only decent DE for UNIX-like platforms and Linux) provides a DtTerm which I end up ignoring and just using XTerm anyway.

Admittedly the code in xterm is not pretty, but I have yet to see a terminal emulator which has a perfect implementation. They are strangely complex.
Click to expand...
My experience/opinion on Desktop Environments vs "Window Managers and Applications" is "how do I configure/apply a theme universally". Say a font: older eyes typically want a bigger font, maybe better contrast across all applications. A DE, using only DE applications, can take a single "settings" that applies font across all "DE" applications. WindowManagers? User needs to understand each application and how .Xresources applies.
I think that's why we have "8 bazillion different terms". kterm understands KDE theme/DE settings, gterm GNOME stuff, lxterm LXDE settings.
Toss in clock widgets, browsers, etc, I think thats why every DE winds up reinventing the applications.
Looking at my ,Xresources file, I see *foreground and *Foreground type of things so the underlying applications may be inconsistent.

I really don't know/have a good idea. I know what I do, what I like to use and "KISS"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top