Wayland

Status
Not open for further replies.
taz said:
I think FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD/DragonflyBSD should start doing the same and produce stuff that is *BSD native (so to speak). Otherwise it's just going to keep lagging behind ... (also note that I'm talking about desktop)
Click to expand...
Yes, good point. That is certainly everyone wants to advocate here. We should and could stop lagging behind by doing our own agenda.

If it does not match the allocation of resources agenda of the FreeBSD Foundation, maybe we should start thinking about separate funding native *BSD-Projects that are still terribly neglected but needed?

In mean time I certainly would use Wayland too if it were available.
 
taz said:
Lumina is a great step in that direction I just wish it had been done sooner and that they ditch KDE and GNOME when it's production ready. (also note that I'm talking about desktop)
Click to expand...
Respectfully disagree with this statement. Choice is one of the hallmarks of open source. I have no personal desire to turn FreeBSD into Windows or OS X.

I'm out before taz makes edit #42. ;)
 
The BSD politics from its beginnings, have been the servers. Linux is pointer on servers. FreeBSD was wrong in leave the desktop graphic to a derivative, the PC-BSD has no architecture for 32 bits and it is a project of 10 years ago. Technology is moving toward the quantum and we'll see what happens in the future. :(
 
getopt said:
Yes, good point. That is certainly everyone wants to advocate here. We should and could stop lagging behind by doing our own agenda.

If it does not match the allocation of resources agenda of the FreeBSD Foundation, maybe we should start thinking about separate funding native *BSD-Projects that are still terribly neglected but needed?

In mean time I certainly would use Wayland too if it were available.
Click to expand...

I don't think that separate funding would make much of a difference since I keep track of what is the Foundation doing and I think that they are investing the money wisely. It's just that probably there is not that much money to invest in all areas (server, desktop, embedded). For example the Foundation founded the the Intel KMS which was really needed. Our problem is lack of resources, community is really small and until we grow in numbers no foundation is going to help since there wont be sufficient number of people to donate.

Respectfully disagree with this statement. Choice is one of the hallmarks of open source. I have no personal desire to turn FreeBSD into Windows or OS X.

I'm out before taz makes edit #42.
Click to expand...

Right but if PC-BSD where to be "Lumina only" you would still have a choice to install just FreeBSD and then play with KDE/GNOME/MATE/...I think that users looking at PC-BSD as an option are more concerned with the fact whether it "just simply works" than whether is it KDE/GNOME/MATE...

I have tried PC-BSD couple of times since it first started and that is all, just tried. Because every time I try it wasn't stable enough for me to put it on my laptop for example and use it for every day multimedia stuff. And my opinion is if they went with a native DE from the beginning by now it would have been rock solid just as FreeBSD. Right now they are just playing catch with Ubuntu and the same thing will happen with Wayland. By the time Wayland "1.0" is ported to FreeBSD, Linux users will have Wayland "3.0" and personaly I would rather stay in CLI than use some glued/hacked Linux code.

Also sorry about the million edits.
 
getopt said:
Now, if you stay in CLI, how are you watching the "nice video" above?
Click to expand...

Heh :)

I'm not in CLI as in no Xorg at all...but I try to keep my system as much CLI based as possible (so no gtk or qt is the goal). I don't run any DE.
I need to have a browser so I'm watching it from a browser but I do not use linux emualtion to enable Flash, only HTML5 videos. But it's also no problem to go with a combination youtube-dl + mplyer streaming.

In fact the browser is my biggest issue currently for my "perfect" setup since I can't avoid Chrome/Firefox/... and by that I have to use gtk/qt. My idea is to switch to NETSurf on framebuffers but still hadn't had time to play with that and I know that their JavaScript support is very limited for now, but it is in development.
 
Apple won the UNIX desktop war a long time ago. Who cares. No matter how you slice it, the motive of the BSDs has always been the backend of things. Wayland is insignificant, and the developers have more important things to focus on for the community and customers (Yes, FreeBSD has customers - take a look at the donors list). Any open source attempt so far has been a mere clone of what Apple has already done years ago. Oh, but "Apple is proprietary!". That's business, get over it. It's still good software. So just use it.

Creating a good desktop and ecosystem around it is terribly complicated and expensive (just look at how huge The Cocoa and Quartz framework is, for example). Why does this matter? because users like "easy, shiny" things, and developers want a financial incentive to even make apps for a platform, period. Just look at windows phone for example. With all the resources Microsoft has, it's still a stagnated platform with a severely small market share.

As state before the server has always been the motive here, and until there's a shift in purpose "the open source BSD desktop" will continue to be a small niche.

my two cents
 
Beastie7 said:
Yes, FreeBSD has customers - take a look at the donors list.
my two cents
Click to expand...
Interesting. Your point is the developers are working on that what they are paid for. And the FreeBSD Foundation is allocationg the revenues for their customers intentions. That's business.

If it were like that, the Foundation would be used for tax avoidance and the promotion of Open Source could be deceitfulness?

Still compensation and donations is not the same. If you think that there is no distinction, ask the IRS.

I cordially hope that your views are just fiction.
 
Here's my opinion on Wayland.

Yeah, X sucks. It's full of cruft and bloat. But it's been the window system of UNIX for so long, it will never be able to be replaced, because simply too many applications are for X.

Okay, Wayland may be used with GNOME and KDE users, but the rest of us (I prefer GTK+2, Xaw, and Motif) will not be able too. It may be a simpler X like system, but it's not compelling enough, and it's not the UNIX way either.

The UNIX way windows system already exists. They call it rio.

The Wayland devs made a mistake of trying to mount their window system on UNIX. They need to go the way OS X, BeOS/Haiku, and Plan 9 did, use a new platform for your new system rather than smashing and fragmenting the system that already exists.

Wayland will die, it seems. No one will use it. If anything, it will only pronounce the gap between FLOS Linuxers and UNIX Linuxers.

Here in FreeBSD, we need not care about that. I just watch with mild curiosity, because I use, in addition to FreeBSD, Slackware, Plan 9, and Gentoo (don't judge me).
 
John Call said:
Not having the freedom to study and modify the code of the software I use is unacceptable for me. I sometimes feel alone in that regard in the BSD community.
Click to expand...
I am not so certain that you are alone. For me, I love for example Mac OSX, but the fact that it is not completely open source drives me more and more to open source UNIX like OSes like the brilliant FreeBSD or even Linux. I prefer the BSD-licensing. That an open source OS can be successful can be seen when you look at Android, which has beaten even iOS. I have nothing against 'closed software', but I am a customer who prefers his software to be open :).
 
BSDBernd said:
I am not so certain that you are alone. For me, I love for example Mac OSX, but the fact that it is not completely open source drives me more and more to open source UNIX like OSes like the brilliant FreeBSD or even Linux. I prefer the BSD-licensing. That an open source OS can be successful can be seen when you look at Android, which has beaten even iOS. I have nothing against 'closed software', but I am a customer who prefers his software to be open :).
Click to expand...
No, no, no, what I was saying was that I consider it my right to do whatever the hell I want with my software. If a piece software is not like that, I usually don't consider it. So I'm not a customer who prefers his software be open, I'm a citizen that demands his software be free.

There doesn't seem to be many people like us in the BSD community. That said, I prefer the BSD license because I think the choice to preserve freedom should be a personal, ethical choice, so it means something. Making your software open source because the GPL says you have to rather than because you care about your users will not stay.
 
Then I suggest you throw away every piece of consumer electronics you have, or appliance that uses proprietary software. Because you certainly won't have access to it's source.

Now I agree with you when it comes to enterprise software. Proprietary web servers, databases, etc is a huge no no to me. But a lot of us BSD users understand the pragmatism behind proprietary software.

It's extremely hard to grow a consumer business on open source software. Then you have to consider the viability of an open source consumer company from a business standpoint to begin with. I highly doubt canonical makes money off of Ubuntu Desktop, at least compared to their more recent cloud/enterprise endeavors.

IMO, an open source phone/desktop isn't as important. Consumers wouldn't care either.

On the other hand, I'm an open source militant for enterprise stuff that serves as the backbone for everything.
 
Beastie7 said:
Then I suggest you throw away every piece of consumer electronics you have, or appliance that uses proprietary software. Because you certainly won't have access to it's source.
Click to expand...
Nice try for a little provocation. But actually it is none. Smart people have no need for i.e. smartphones. They drop it in the recycling box or try to do reversal engineering. Not being able to be called can be truly luxury. Wealth can be measured by the time not being easy reached.

Now I agree with you when it comes to enterprise software. Proprietary web servers, databases, etc is a huge no no to me. But a lot of us BSD users understand the pragmatism behind proprietary software.
Click to expand...

Instead of referring fuzzy to "a lot of us BSD users" you should elaborate your point. Do you mean "a lot of us are understanding", but you do not understand, therefore you are not belonging to us? What is this pragmatism you are talking about? Is it like there is no living being an open source programmer? Or is it DRM is a technology the world needs? Or is it I want my copyright being protected so that I can pass it on to my beneficiary?

It's extremely hard to grow a consumer business on open source software. Then you have to consider the viability of an open source consumer company from a business standpoint to begin with. I highly doubt canonical makes money off of Ubuntu Desktop, at least compared to their more recent cloud/enterprise endeavors.
Click to expand...
On what exactly are you lamenting? That others cannot make money or that you cannot make money? As an entrepreneur or freelancer or employee or as a person that may want but is lacking resources?

IMO, an open source phone/desktop isn't as important.
Click to expand...
Well, that's just your opinion. There is no need to share it. It's just as easy claiming a new law for mandatory open source desktops.
Consumers wouldn't care either.
Click to expand...
Now this a statement that is highly likely a misjudgment. When generalizing one should not let it go into the undefined. It has a sound of hubris too. Huge efforts are being made to explore consumers cause there is no such thing of a dull standard consumer. This exploration even has come to an extent that consumers are becoming aware that they are subject for getting exploited by dotcoms, dotgovs and dotcrims and all intersections of those.

On the other hand, I'm an open source militant for enterprise stuff that serves as the backbone for everything.
Click to expand...
What ever image of consumers you might have, don't they have the right to demand this quality for the stuff they use too?

Don't take it personally. It's just an attempt for discussion.
 
getopt Note that everything you're supporting is also your opinion, too.

Consumers don't care about open source because they don't know what it is and, even if you explained it to them, and they like the concept, within seconds they've forgotten everything you said cause they really don't care or understand it all. Otherwise, Windows wouldn't dominate the desktop. There is no emotional connection to the idea.
 
Yep, agreed. The majority of consumers use whatever is widely known, advertised, and/or popular or a status symbol at any given time. They only care that it works. The technology involved in making it work is largely irrelevant to them. For example, Android seems to be the most widely used smartphone OS in the world. How many Android users know that it is built on Linux or even care? Not very many I would assume. It is popular, heavily advertised, and just works. That is all that matters to them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top