View Single Post
Old 12th December 2013
IdOp's Avatar
IdOp IdOp is offline
Too dumb for a smartphone
Join Date: May 2008
Location: twisting on the daemon's fork(2)
Posts: 828

Originally Posted by harishankar View Post
i.e. 1. One of the BSDs choose to focus and create a DE that is entirely UNIX-like and clean, i.e. focus on the BSD services instead of relying on Linuxisms. It could be a fork of any of the existing desktops like Gnome or KDE as well. Thus the entire abstraction layer could be eliminated making the GUI layer talk directly to the kernel rather than through "abstraction kits". This will be ideal and allow BSDs to have feature rich DEs without depending on Linux code.
Wouldn't the end result of this be a single DE, though? (As in the first sentence.) E.g., it might be a fork of Gnome. I don't know about others, but personally I want nothing to do with Gnome or KDE, so this would reduce my choices.

2. BSDs embrace new solutions in the place of the existing Linuxisms like Conksolekit, policykit, dbus etc. which will seamlessly allow the existing DEs to work as feature-rich on BSD as in Linux.
But, the existing DEs are (initially) a product of Linux-land, and so rely on the Linuxisms. If you replace the Linuxisms with new solutions, you'll still have to port the existing DEs to the new solutions, in perpetuity as they evolve. Or if the existing DEs are really to be used "seamlessly", then the new solutions must continue to change to emulate the changes to *kit, dbus, etc., in Linux-land. Does this really get us anywhere? Maybe I'm missing something.
Reply With Quote