NetBSD-Users archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: Why is Desktop NetBSD a threat to NetBSD?

On Sun, 8 Feb 2009, David Holland wrote:

On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 02:35:50PM +0000, David Brownlee wrote:
        I'd be curious to find out people's response to the following

Since you addressed it to me...

        Sorry - I picked a message from the thread. It was not
        targetted specifically at you.

        If changes were made to NetBSD and pkgsrc to better provide
        an install option for a fully featured desktop system, and
        they did not affect your use or experience of NetBSD (apart
        from additional questions in the installer), do you have
        any objections?

This question is framed so that the answer almost definitionally has
to be no.

        For most people, but I suspect there is a very small minority
        who would answer yes. I wanted to clarify that as the rest
        of my post would be irrelevant for them...

        If your concern is with the changes themselves impacting
        your existing and future NetBSD experience, then I completely
        understand - please take a look at the Desktop Project pages (Particularly Phase1)
        and identify the individual issues.

Which is fine, but almost none of that touches on the points that
concern me. In order to make the desktop stuff work properly, it needs
to integrate with the base system at a number of points. (Obvious
examples that come to mind include the handling of online
documentation, generating/processing device change notifications, and
dealing with system configuration.)

If this integration is not done at all, the desktop will not run very
well, which will reflect badly on the project even if (maybe
particularly if) lots of people don't use the desktop.

If the integration is done poorly, it can and will affect the quality
of the existing and future NetBSD experience for those who don't use
the desktop.

As I said in my previous posting, doing the integration well requires
thought and attention, and I'm somewhat concerned about whether it's
going to get it. It doesn't help that other projects have set a poor
precedent, either.

        Valid points - I believe they are relevant to Phase 2 of
        the project. Maybe you could add a summary of your converns
        to that page?

The only one of the tasks as such that I have concerns about is the OS
branding/boot splash screen thing. However, jmcneill has already told
me in so many words that he's not interested in my opinion, and for
the time being I don't feel inclined to push any further.

        Its a feature I also would have no use for, and would not
        want enabled on any of my boxes. As long as the 'traditional'
        install defaults it to off though, I'm happy.

                David/absolute       -- No hype required --

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index