Which DE is more developed for FreeBSD

D

davetrotteruk

I don't know if this is posted in the right place but I want to make this clear its not one of the "Gnome vs KDE vs XFCE ..." threads i already know what i like but i want to know if one is more developed to such an extent to sway my position.
Thanks
 
The DEs are really all developed for linux and then ported to FreeBSD. None of them are really even remotely developed for FreeBSD.
 
Unless you're wedded to some KDE thingumbobber, the gtk/gnome stuff seems more generally useful (I'm thinking of big blocky stuff that lots of pipples installs like Firefox, Openoffice). That said, I really strongly object to all the frivolous "services" that even a supposedly light-weight DE (like XFCE4) wants to run.

With opera running from top:
Code: 
41 processes:  1 running, 40 sleeping
CPU:  0.2% user,  0.0% nice,  0.4% system,  0.0% interrupt, 99.4% idle
Whereas the little linux laptop of my girlfriend (running XFCE4) has at least 3x that many daemons running just to get to a desktop:
Code: 
Tasks: 160 total,   5 running, 155 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
Cpu(s): 41.1%us,  7.9%sy, 48.7%ni,  2.1%id,  0.0%wa,  0.2%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st

I understand the argument that having all this idle processing power providing special things like an application that makes a "beep" every time you click the "honk" button is just usin' what God gave you, but: bleh.
 
expl said:
The one you write yourself while using FreeBSD to do it.
Click to expand...

Thats OpenCDE then,

It is 3% complete but 100% developed on FreeBSD.

The icons were done in Microsoft Paint, but I count them as resources :p
 
Well, scrotwm is written by OpenBSD devs and I doubt there are many linux users using it, but I'd hardly say it's written for any BSD specifically. The only OpenBSD specific part of it is the Makefile. :p
 
I do not understand what is exactly 'de written for some_specific_OS'.
DE should be written with some standarts in mind, that should be somehow supported by OS.
 
Or at least can we have our dual case back?

adamk said:
The DEs are really all developed for linux and then ported to FreeBSD. None of them are really even remotely developed for FreeBSD.
Click to expand...

I suspect (though this is just my conceit) that "developed" means "works well or properly". The past tense rather than the present perfect, at least sensibly.

In that vein: curse you, English grammar! I want an aorist.
 
I've been using KDE 3, KDE 4 and Xfce4 on FreeBSD and I don't think I noticed any blatant Linux-isms -- as in, stuff that only works well when run on Linux. OTOH, Gnome is said to have some problems on FreeBSD, but I never tried Gnome.

What's the point of this question anyway? Just install the DE that you're interested in, and see for yourself how well it works.
 
I just started running KDE and its been pretty good, although sort of laggy with the desktop effects enabled. Didn't find any apps that don't work yet (except for Amarok, but Clementine is much better anyway).
 
nekoexmachina said:
Even if you are running tty-only, you already have your own desktop environment :p
Click to expand...

Really? How do you figure?

Personally, I'm running xmonad with a bunch of terminals... but I don't really consider it a 'desktop environment.' Perhaps my definition is off.
 
Really? How do you figure?
Click to expand...
DE definition: collection of software t whoops googled it, it only refers to graphical sw integrated one with another %(
But in my mind it was any set of sw integrated one with another to work perfectly, and UNIX is by-design like that.
 
fronclynne said:
Unless you're wedded to some KDE thingumbobber, the gtk/gnome stuff seems more generally useful (I'm thinking of big blocky stuff that lots of pipples installs like Firefox, Openoffice). That said, I really strongly object to all the frivolous "services" that even a supposedly light-weight DE (like XFCE4) wants to run.
Click to expand...

I share your objection and don't care for "desktop environments" because of it.

I also have a visceral dislike for monolithic, everything-but-the-kitchen-sink packages. I prefer to mix and match a set of smaller, more independent tools chosen to meet my own peculiar needs and tastes. Currently this means the musca window manager and some GTK+ apps. I've removed all Qt apps from my machine (no more bizarre buildtools chain!) Never had Gnome or KDE on this machine. I'm using a few pieces from XFCE and ROX however, and probably should re-examine them to see if they're pulling in some dependencies I'd rather not have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top