Hi, all!After reading all those posts about NetBSD and desktop (integration) i finally think i found what bothers me the most. As some have pointed out before, i find NetBSD to be the only clean, versatile, non-bloathed and most important - well thought-out OS.
There are a couple of points i'd like to stress:1. NetBSD is not an OS that you give your grandma and she starts hacking away. We have a niche OS that is good, actually it is the very best in its niche -> and expert user. It is no point trying to meet the demands of the majority of users for two reasons - we won't meet their demands better than other (bigger) OSes and we may loose an expert user who wants something simple, different and down-to-the-last-line-of-code systematicly thought off system - which a desktop NetBSD with some 3rd party GUI
certainly won't be.2. And with the last sentance i come to the next point - 3rd party. The basic philosophy was (is?) that we (NetBSD) provide the basic OS (kernel and userspace) and the user is free to customize it with any 3rd party progs of their choice. There is no guarantee of the quality or consistence of those programs. I rely on NetBSD to be consistent. It is the single most important thing about NetBSD. If we (NetBSD) make a choice about some feature it is not a matter of democracy (majority of users) or a matter of a preference of certain minority - it simply must be the BEST decision posible (the best meaning being best in accordance to NetBSD phylosophy - simple, effective, consistent, portable, non-destructive, expandable, etc) The choice of being dependant on 3rd party application is nothing like that. Nor it is the best option (which one? KDE? Gnome? XFce? ... there are milion options) The only appropriate way for NetBSD to have an (integrated - as in connected to basic installation) GUI is the MacOS X way -> to build our own GUI - where we would have 100% complete control over it and we could make the BEST posible decisions (for the sake of consistency) - but since that is an absurd option (mostly because of the lack of resources)
we amust accept that to be a private decision of every individual.3. I use NetBSD for servers (all kind), laptops and desktops. I miss a lot of features for the desktop (flash, 3D, skype, ...) but none of them has nothing to do with my 'personal' choice of my GUI (which is currently a modified ctwm). I install NetBSD a lot and it takes me a lot of time to set it up every time i do that (especially for the desktop GUI), but i don't want and arbitary option of some XY GUI to be preselected for me. What I want is customizable INSTALL CDs, so I can prepare MY choice of programs and configurations I use.
So in short - I don't support Desktop NetBSD effords for reasons: - NetBSD is not for non-expert user (and it shouldn't try either) - Some XY choice of 3rd party software would break our basic phylosophy- It is not the solution to any problem, it can only provide new problems (resources being transfered to Desktop development; lack of focus on real problems...)
my small and dirty rant ;) br, -- jj Cem Kayali wrote:
Hello!Well, i'm one of the list member that use NetBSD as primary desktop / notebook operating system in daily business life, browsing, mailing, photo editing, database management, net based application devolopment, etc. etc.I've tried gnome, kde, xfce and openbox as desktop environment and window manager and in short choosing right desktop environment strongly depends on your desktop pleasures and your needs. I generally prefer KDE but most of the reasons why i prefer KDE is SUBJECTIVE! I believe most of yours are subjective too.As a result, i really dont care which one is preferred, but i believe a desktop netbsd would be quite good. So use easy-to-integrate one.Regards, Cem Jared D. McNeill, 02/07/09 16:15:Pouya D. Tafti wrote:On 2009-02-07, der Mouse <mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost> wrote:Prompted by smb's response to ad's note about "Desktop NetBSD"....I'm actually starting to notice a fundamental divide here. There seemto be two groups of people (I'm painting with a broad brush here; theboundaries are not as sharp as I'm making them sound, but I think thischaracterization is useful enough to think about). One group uses "modern" machines (i386, ia64, amd64), sees disk, RAM, and CPU cycles as cheap, and wants a "desktop experience", preferably one that looksas much like the Windows/Mac/Linux world as possible. The other group uses other ports (sandpoint, vax, shark, pmax, the list is long), sees CPU cycles, RAM, sometimes even disk space as scarce resources, and isperfectly happy with a command line (or occasionally, as in embedded systems, no UI at all). Most of the conflicts I've seen within the project, recently, are between these two camps. Perhaps we needanother split? It would certainly cut down on those conflicts and keep each group happier, letting them have what they want without constantlystruggling with the other.As a desktop user running NetBSD on "modern" (amd64) hardware, I would find such a split unfortunate. If I wanted a Linux-like user experience, I would run Linux. The reason I turned to NetBSD was its clean and light design, which I think is to a large part due to the constraints imposed by its multi-architecture and multi-purpose nature. The main area in which I would wish to see improvements is not desktop experience but drivers and hardware support. For a while now, NetBSD has been my last refuge against the seemingly overwhelming tide of bloatware and GUI-centric design. If NetBSD (or its "modern-hardware" branch) was to become another Linux clone, I wouldn't know where to turn next.The goal here is to make it easier to install a modern desktop if you want one. Why does that bother you? Just say no when the installer asks you and carry on with your life.Now lets get back on track and discuss how you can help, or keep your whinging about the merits of the project to yourself.