Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Lumina: PC-BSD's Own Desktop Environment

timothy posted about 6 months ago | from the always-room-for-one-more dept.

GUI 148

jones_supa (887896) writes "The PC-BSD project is developing a new open source (BSD license) desktop environment from scratch. The name of the project is Lumina and it will be based around the Qt toolkit. The ultimate goal is to replace KDE as the default desktop of PC-BSD. Lumina aims to be lightweight, stable, fast-running, and FreeDesktop.org/XDG compliant. Most of the Lumina work is being done by PC-BSD's Ken Moore. Even though Lumina is still in its early stages, it can be built and run successfully, and an alpha version can already be obtained from PC-BSD's ports/package repositories."

cancel ×

148 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46833299)

What is wrong with XFCE, LXDE etc? Why can't we just make 1 environment that is really good, rather than 110 mostly complete ones?

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | about 6 months ago | (#46833369)

I'm not even going to link to the xkcd comic, we all know it.

Besides, one of the awesome things about open source is anyone can attempt to build a better mousetrap for any reason they damn please. Yes it leads to fragmentation and a lot of duplicate effort, but it also leads to people trying out new ideas and having fun. This guy wants to make yet another window manager, all the power to him. Maybe it'll be awesome. Maybe it'll have some clever thing that gets used elsewhere. Maybe he'll get bored in a month or so. It's his time to waste regardless.

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

nucrash (549705) | about 6 months ago | (#46833391)

When being asked, why re-invent the wheel, the best reply is because just maybe the wheel isn't good enough.

I can think of numerous times where people tore everything down and started over and found some flaws in designs that wouldn't have been seen otherwise.

Re:Why? (2, Interesting)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 6 months ago | (#46833457)

Okay, but when you've torn everything down and started over from scratch twenty-plus times already, maybe that stops being the right development methodology?

Re:Why? (4, Interesting)

Microlith (54737) | about 6 months ago | (#46833719)

What does "development methodology" have to do with it? Sometimes you just want to start from scratch rather than hauling along someone else's baggage. I guess your complaint just falls into the category of "dissatisfaction with how others spend their own time."

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46833875)

I guess your complaint just falls into the category of "dissatisfaction with how others spend their own time."

Ah, thank you, I was writing up a 3 paragraph rant trying to get to that point.

So, shortest form of my rant to expand:
You're not paying them, they aren't forcing you to use it, so why get upset about someone else's hobby?

Re:Why? (4, Informative)

adri (173121) | about 6 months ago | (#46833795)

You realise that when Linux came about, there had already been more than twenty UNIX derivatives, right?

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46834547)

You realise that when Linux came about, there had already been more than twenty UNIX derivatives, right?

And you do realize that Linux was not better in anyway to any of them? It was the licensing that was different, right?

Re:Why? (0)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 6 months ago | (#46834167)

Okay, but when you've torn everything down and started over from scratch twenty-plus times already, maybe that stops being the right development methodology?

Yes, computers should only run Windows 8, and nothing else. I've done a number of things with computers that others find odd - just last week, bought a Chromebook, installed Linux on it then run Windows programs on the Linux side.

Can you imagine just how frigging stupid that is? Why the heck would anyone do that when there are plenty computers that will run that Windows program? Tough titty. I do it because I can - I'm having fun, and I'm learning. Then again, learning today is bad, berry, berry bad.

Re:Why? (2)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 6 months ago | (#46834489)

Well excuse me! I merely read the fucking summary and somehow thought just because it said that "the ultimate goal is to replace KDE as the default desktop of PC-BSD" and that "Lumina aims to be lightweight, stable, fast-running, and FreeDesktop.org/XDG compliant," that meant the point was to make something better for the public, not merely to "have fun" or "learn" something.

Clearly, your reading comprehension skills are so far beyond mine that you were able to determine the "real" ultimate goal of the project despite the summary explicitly saying something completely different. I'm so goddamn sorry I deigned to participate in the conversation, when my ideas so pale in comparison to your obvious brilliance!

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46835255)

Why do you care regardless? Why are you so worried about how others spend their time?

Re:Why? (1)

nine-times (778537) | about 6 months ago | (#46834851)

I think it really depends on whether or not the first twenty times go things wrong.

I'd agree, there's not much point in starting from scratch when things are working exactly how you'd want. However, if there's nothing that does things correctly, you might need to start over. Or even if everything else works well enough, it still might be that you have other needs, different from the intended audience for the previous solutions.

Re:Why? (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 6 months ago | (#46833459)

When being asked, why re-invent the wheel, the best reply is because maybe the wheel isn't good enough [kickstarter.com] .

Then again, we also got this [youtube.com]

Re:Why? (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 6 months ago | (#46834049)

Then again, we also got this [youtube.com]

So that's where the inspiration for Windows 8 came from!

Re:Why? (2, Interesting)

nyctopterus (717502) | about 6 months ago | (#46833779)

But what are they going to change that will make the effort worth it? When I look at the variety of desktops, the majority (perhaps all) of them seem to be tinkering with the same basic concept. It would be much more interesting if this splitting was leading to a drastically different desktop concepts, but it's not.

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | about 6 months ago | (#46833805)

We got tiling WMs.

I'm not a fan of them, but it's kinda different.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | about 6 months ago | (#46834199)

Probably: BSD license and guaranteed support for BSD unixes. The former occasionally matters to the people working on the BSDs, the latter definitely does. (And is notably lacking in many of the current desktop environments - even if they do work on BSDs, they are often missing features and poorly maintained, with no interest in providing better support.)

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46833813)

Don't kid yourself, the wheel is not even close to be invented. What we are doing are piling dung on top of dung, arguing about pros and cons of different crap.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46834549)

and this is precicely the reason why linux and bsd fail to gain any significant traction outside of server rooms.. too much fragmentation and too many developers doing their own thing instead of teaming up to make one great thing.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46833473)

Never laughed so hard at a joke nobody told - good one.
(you didn't even have to say the number)

Re:Why? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46833489)

Why indeed. The BSD license will ensure that if it ever does gain traction (i.e. is adopted by an Apple or Samsung or Microsoft for some product) that the community will never see any of that effort.

GPL is true freedom for your code. BSD is a corporate handout.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46833573)

Why would either Apple or Microsoft want it?

Re:Why? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 6 months ago | (#46833685)

GPL code is why we can't have nice things like ffmpeg/libav producing good-quality AAC. You see, there are open source libraries but we can't link them against ffmpeg and redistribute a binary that's capable of using the shared object, because GPL says so.

Re:Why? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 6 months ago | (#46833731)

That's because you're trying to reuse a library that has a proprietary license. What did you expect? I don't see how a BSD-licensed project could include a proprietary-licensed library either.

Re: Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46834015)

Why not, just hit compile. Fuck the popos.

Re:Why? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 6 months ago | (#46835217)

Actually in this case it's fully redistributable--and in fact is hosted on Sourceforge under the Apache license these days--just not compatible with GPL.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46833743)

But just remember to only distribute the binary, because that's the biggest advantage to the BSD license - not giving downstream users modified sources!

Re:Why? (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about 6 months ago | (#46834431)

Users don't look at the source, only devs do and BSD is for the devs.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46833705)

The GPL takes away freedom from developers and companies. It gives Freedom (TM) to end users, but they don't usually care.

This is a political argument that can't be won. You need to accept that not everyone is going to agree with you about who is important. I think people are, but you think code is.

Re:Why? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 6 months ago | (#46833859)

Not necessarily.
While parts will be vendor locked in, these companies can support back for other components.

In many ways the boring/non marketable stuff is sent back in help improving the product. As if they choose to fork, that means they will need to fully support that fork continuing on. Vs. supporting back changes and being able to keep your product consistent with the core project.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46834031)

Ugh, this debate is old. There's good and bad arguments for GPL and more permissive licensing like MIT and BSD, and they've all been argued in nauseating detail for what feels like a big chunk of my life.

I don't know what it's like where you live, but here it's a nice day. Can't we just not have this argument again...

Re:Why? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46833723)

Yeah...that's a stupid fucking analogy. Sure, anyone can "attempt to build a better mousetrap for any reason they damn please." That doesn't make it a good fucking idea. If you need any evidence see Ubuntu and Unity for details.

Oh well, props for not linking to some lame xkcd comic like they're pages of the fucking Dead Sea Scrolls. "We all know it," yeah that's probably because dumbass subscribers like you keep posting the fucking thing every few hours.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46833803)

So you complain that there are more than one car makers? That there are more than one phone maker? More than one hard drive maker? More than one TV maker? More than one food company? I could go on and on.

What is this whole of people whining about someone making their own software yet gloss over the countless trillions that are spent "duplicating effort" in every industry and commercial endeavor.

Re:Why? (1)

Anrego (830717) | about 6 months ago | (#46833827)

Life doesn't have to be a sad place. There's happiness all around us if you know where to look.

Hope you feel better soon :)

Re:Why? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46835039)

Yes, yes, see if we only had the option to return a lying hope and change peddler to the oval office, I'm sure 4 more years of false hope will materialize right behind our wide open sphincters.
Now, it matters not what side of ANY issue you are on, that is not my point. Everyone born since the new deal had better start thinking "happy thoughts" or the russians will take over disneyland.
Sadly, The year of the Linux desktop has been delayed again.

awesome? (2)

koinu (472851) | about 6 months ago | (#46833765)

Maybe it'll be awesome.

No, it won't be awesome [naquadah.org] .

Re:Why? (2)

Kjella (173770) | about 6 months ago | (#46834343)

The flip side of that is the old adage "divide and conquer", the OSS community is almost self-defeating at times. Long before the mouse trap is the kind of smooth experience users want the core developers have moved to their new and even more grand mouse trap refactoring/redesign/remake that'll fix all the fundamental issues they discovered in the last design. Not that it's really different from proprietary software, at work it's exactly the same I'd love to get rid of the old and in with the new because even though it's not entirely done yet it's so much better than the old. The difference is at work I can't just drop working on our existing software and with our current user base, what pays the bills is what they get done not what I feel like doing. With OSS the train is leaving the station quite often, either you're on it or you're on your own.

And by on your own, I mean good luck finding a backport of any modern software to run on a distro 5+ years old or figuring out all the dependencies yourself. Just upgrade, it's free as in beer and in speech... but not as in time. Almost every 6 month cycle when I was on Ubuntu there was something I wanted and a bunch of unwelcome changes that tagged along. With Windows 7 I feel pretty confident that I can install any 2014 application on my 2009 OS, it'll work and it'll involve just that application. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there's somebody out there who wants the new version but as long as it's not broken for me, don't fix it. I just wanted a new app, not a new distro.

Re:Why? (1)

Flavianoep (1404029) | about 6 months ago | (#46834505)

Maybe it'll be awesome.

Nah, awesome [wikipedia.org] has already been made.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46834861)

Very likely, they want something like XFCE / LXDE but based on the QT library stack instead of the gnome one.

I hope they do well, I could do with a lighter weight QT desktop and just the right bits of KDE's nice support for multiple displays/style overrides.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46834963)

LXDE is already being ported to Qt.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46833447)

What is wrong with XFCE, LXDE etc?

Well, for starters, they're licensed under the GPL.

The whole point of the *BSDs is to create open source which doesn't preclude you from building a commercial product around it. The BSD license would let someone take the code, incorporate it into a product, and sell it without needing to release their source code.

Some of us prefer a BSD license for that reason, because it makes better quality tools for people to do with as they please -- some might argue a BSD license is more free than the GPL.

The GPL folks get all rabid at the thought of it, but tough.

Why can't we just make 1 environment that is really good, rather than 110 mostly complete ones?

Because cats don't like being herded, because there is no BSD licensed desktop, and just because someone is interested in doing it.

You don't get a vote on what projects coders want to work on.

This has always been true of Open Source. Someone writes something because they want to.

Re: Why? (1)

staalmannen (1705340) | about 6 months ago | (#46834179)

Enlightenment and EFL are bsd licensed and there are several others, like dwm, are permissively licensed

Re: Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46835203)

Yeah but exactly none of these are anything close to a friendly, workable DE.

Re:Why? (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about 6 months ago | (#46833551)

The FreeBSD and PC-BSD crowd is highly against reinventing the wheel and duplication. The only time they do so is when they have a very strong argument to do so.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46833725)

Why can't we just make one car? Why can't me just make one TV? Why can't we just make one video card, motherboard, cpu? Why can't we just make one microwave, fridge and stove? Why can't we just make one search engine? Why can't we just make one video/audio codec? Why can't we just make one phone?

Do you complain about all the different versions of all the things above too? If not, why not? Isn't making more than one of anything ever just wasting effort?

hitting and kicking his girlfriend 117 times (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46833313)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2611943/Millionaire-Tech-CEO-filmed-hitting-kicking-girlfriend-117-times-brutal-30-minute-attack-sentenced-25-hours-community-service.html

"Millionaire Tech CEO filmed hitting and kicking his girlfriend 117 times in brutal 30-minute attack sentenced just to 25 hours community service"

Remember citizen, socialism is for the people, not for the socialists. Rules are for little people.

Most. Transparent. Ever.

Kenneth Moore (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46833325)

Kenneth Moore Kenneth Moore coding through the land
Soon every PC-BSD will be in his mighty hand
He steals them from the rich
And gives them to the poor
Mister Moore Mister Moore Mister Moore

So long GPL. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46833329)

Are there ANY gpl projects left that have any significant users? I guess it's just the linux kernel, but that can easily be replaced with the much faster and way more secure FreeBSD kernel.

Cool, exactly what we need (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46833345)

I hope that it comes with a new USB connector too.

Name? (1, Funny)

imadoofus (233751) | about 6 months ago | (#46833405)

Terrible name. Now I can associate it with junk cars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Lumina [wikipedia.org]

Re:Name? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 6 months ago | (#46833437)

This is a good point. The only way they could have screwed up worse would have been to name it "Pinto", "Gremlin", or "Aztek". (The latter has been said to have been the worst car in all of history, responsible for the downfall of Pontiac.)

Re:Name? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 6 months ago | (#46833785)

From what I understand the Aztek was actually a good car, It was just butt ugly so no one really wanted it.

Re:Name? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 6 months ago | (#46833911)

I have no idea if the Lumina was mechanically sound or crashworthy, and for all I know, it was. I didn't matter, because it's also butt-ugly (though not nearly as bad as the Aztek).

Being butt-ugly is sufficient for a car to be considered "bad". No one wants an ugly car (at least, not enough to make the car profitable to sell). The Aztek's lesson is clear: make a car ugly enough, and you can kiss your company good-bye.

Re:Name? (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 6 months ago | (#46833933)

I've google it and find it not so ugly, and it has a smart form factor. Hatchback, that's good for putting stuff in esp. when you fold the rear seats down.
For a really ugly car look at BMW i3, it's vomit worthy.

BTW, nobody outside of the US has heard of Chevrolet Lumina.

Re:Name? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46834461)

A lot of cars look shitty in photos, but when you see them in real life they arn't that bad.

The Aztek is a rare breed which is kinda the opposite. In a photo it doesn't look as terrible as people describe it, but in real life is just looks like shit.

Re:Name? (1)

Anrego (830717) | about 6 months ago | (#46834439)

Interestingly there's kind of a weird interest in the Aztek right now due to it being featured on Breaking Bad.

Re:Name? (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 6 months ago | (#46834373)

No man that was a four door Monte Carlo. A real street machine.

Why replicate already done work? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46833445)

Why not use something like LXDE or XFCE?

Re:Why replicate already done work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46833639)

Why not use something like LXDE or XFCE?

Why not use exist post that state the same thing a thousand time before? Why did you feel so important that you had to input your own?

Answering these questions will answerer your. Fuck off.

X-BSD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46833449)

So is this going to be like Xubuntu? LXDE, anyone?

Re:X-BSD? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 6 months ago | (#46833541)

This is going to be something like KDE, as that is what Lumina will be replacing.

On the other hand, LXDE is also being rewritten to be Qt-based, so that will probably be something along the same lines.

Several mistakes (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46833521)

The summary contains several mistakes.

1. Lumina is not yet available in the ports tree, searches for it do not return anything.
2. The project is not trying to become the PC-BSD desktop, at least not yet. Right now it is in the early/experimental stages to see if making a PC-BSD only desktop is feasible.
3. There is no default desktop on PC-BSD. KDE is one of the install-time options, which include MATE, LXDE, Cinnamon and many others.

Re:Several mistakes (5, Interesting)

jones_supa (887896) | about 6 months ago | (#46833957)

Submitter here. I take full responsibility for the mistakes you mentioned. Most of that stuff I simply robotically extracted upstream from the Phoronix article. I did not use more of my time to do a verified, accurate research of the topic. My apologies.

Re:Several mistakes (2)

idontgno (624372) | about 6 months ago | (#46834229)

Once upon a time, in a Slashdot epoch of heroes and myths and CowboyNeal and editors who would actually edit, you could work with the editor that accepted your submission and get an update to TFS.

Alas, the time of the Gods is gone, and all we have is Beta and today's "editors".

But I still find myself wishing for heroes, as foolish as it seems.

Re:Several mistakes (1)

SeaFox (739806) | about 6 months ago | (#46835391)

Thank you for owning up to your mistakes in the article, that's more than the editors around here seem to do.

Anyone knows how it would compare to razor-qt ? (4, Interesting)

biloute (1210348) | about 6 months ago | (#46833543)

http://razor-qt.org/ [razor-qt.org]

Re:Anyone knows how it would compare to razor-qt ? (2)

aliquis (678370) | about 6 months ago | (#46834001)

Razor-Qt and LXDE is supposed to become LXDE-Qt or something such.

But so far I haven't actually run it (now I can't say that I so far haven't seen any actual release of it because currently I'm running Fedora and they didn't seemed to have Razor-Qt packages or whatever (at least I don't have it installed, you don't have to tell me "but there is Fedora packages on this and that page" because it would make sense in some being available but I would kinda had expected it to be in the regular repositories (if they aren't.))

I guess for now it would compare like an alpha which builds and run but lacks features and have no file manager vs LXDE-Qt.

Enlightenment work for similar purposes too about half of the times I access the menu it crashes for some reason and maybe I had some other issue with it too. For the moment I run KDE 4.x even though it use up some more resources.

I'm all for lightweight (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46833565)

but I have to admit, my desktop is something I look at very very often and since I have only modern machines running as desktops, I'd like the option to put on all the bells and whistles I want, even if it's only for vanity and nothing to do with functionality.

It seems there is this interesting trend to keep targeting mobile/low powered PCs which I've found to be kind of funny considering how much progress we've made with our desktops. This course of "mobile first desktop second" is annoying.

Re:I'm all for lightweight (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 6 months ago | (#46834005)

I have a modern-ish machine but no SSD. So I won't use the heavy desktops like Gnome 3, Cinnamon, KDE, Windows 7 because waiting for a terminal or file manager to show up whereas it was instant on Windows 3.1 or 98SE is not fun. I'm all for a "bells and whistles" desktop that would stay lightweight on I/O. Software rendering has to stay as an option as well in case I have driver or GPU crashes.

Re:I'm all for lightweight (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 6 months ago | (#46835279)

I just opened up Windows Explorer on Windows 7 and it took less than 1 second. And this is on a laptop I bought 6 years ago. Maybe you need to ditch the Pentium 3 shitbox you're running?

snowden-manning 'clone' spotted in the wwwild (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46833605)

chelsea smiles http://rt.com/shows/breaking-set-summary/154476-gitmo-secret-camp-us/

Had to be done (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46833635)

The problem with xfce, gnome, and most of the other desktop environments is that they tend to focus on Linux and most of them have actually removed *BSD compatibility recently in favor of the latest trends in the Linux community.

XFCE famously dropped FreeBSD support for some functions in their file manager for example. Gnome told us to FSCK off entirely.

We have to fight back.

Re:Had to be done (2)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 6 months ago | (#46834187)

LXDE is a great asset btw, it has a good and real philosophy of components independant from each other. Pcmanfm is impressive, a nautilus/thunar clone with the strengthes of both (ignoring the nautilus 3.x feature depletion).

You can use everything LXDE and a different file manager, or pcmanfm and everything different if you wish. Had a fluxbox + pcmanfm + audacious with xmms/winamp skin for music playback on a 1999 computer and it was brilliant.
Lumina could just use pcmanfm-qt, give some minimal input as well as testing in *BSD lands to the project and I think it would be good.

BTW, in the gtk desktops like Mate and LXDE (possibly XFCE) I suffered from the volume control applet working with ALSA and pulseaudio but not OSS.. this on linux (mint/ubuntu/debian). I never tried PC-BSD or a FreeBSD desktop to see what happens but this is where I want the BSD community to do something I guess (even though the software is GPL..) and also I would want broader OSS support for sound cards and to be clear what exactly works (e.g. I failed to get Xonar DX working? even though dumb stereo output support would be nice already)

FirsT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46833689)

channel #GNNA on that has grown up for membership. expulsion of IPF All our times have play area Try not real problems vitality.0 Like an Let's keep to [slashdot.org], don't be afraid very sick and its and Michael Smith shitheads. *BSD we don't sux0r as Already aware, *BSD forwards we must is ingesting that support These early There's no 'I have to kill 4.1BSD product,

Lightweight... (2)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 6 months ago | (#46833757)

This is relivant:

http://blog.martin-graesslin.c... [martin-graesslin.com]

I can't add much to Martin's sage words, but basically the term doesn't have much meaning in and of itself. Its the tech equivilent of stamping a "Natural" label on a box. What does that mean? Almost anything.

Re:Lightweight... (1)

Njovich (553857) | about 6 months ago | (#46834437)

That's just doublespeak to cloud the issue of KDE not being lightweight... He mentions all the right factors himself: low memory, low cpu use, fast, not too many features. His complaint seems to be that there is no definition of a cutoff point from where something ceases to be lightweight. That's like saying you can't call an airplane fast transportation, because there is no fixed definition of 'fast'. However, most people who say an airplane is fast are comparing it to cars, walking, boats, etc. They are not referring to comparisons with the speed of light. And, lets be honest here, if a desktop environment is being called lightweight, that means compared to KDE and Gnome. Don't tell me you can not be more memory, CPU, feature and speed efficient than those two.

Disclaimer: I love KDE, use it every day and I happily trade my resources in for the features I get for it.

Re:Lightweight... (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 6 months ago | (#46834653)

But KDE isn't a single program or even a set group of programs, its a community of people that develops those things in a highly customizable way.

So *my* "KDE" might not use much resources at all, while yours might consume more than CERN. It depends.

Re:Lightweight... (1)

Njovich (553857) | about 6 months ago | (#46835163)

Both of our KDE's use much more resources than XFCE or LXDE. And it's worth it. But that's still the facts.

And if you want to use name KDE SC for the set of programs everyone has always called KDE, be my guest. I will keep using the term KDE, thank you very much.

Re:Lightweight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46835477)

And XFCE and LXDE use more resources than Windows 3.1 or MS-DOS 6.0. So by my opinion they are not lightweight at all.

Re:Lightweight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46835525)

The only "customization" that makes KDE "lightweight" is uninstalling it.

Re:Lightweight... (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 6 months ago | (#46835379)

He mentions all the right factors himself: low memory, low cpu use, fast, not too many features.

But all those things are highly subjective and vague. How low is low enough CPU usage and memory usage? What CPU are you basing this off of? On my octo-core desktop "low cpu usage" is going to be "high cpu usage" on something less powerful. What is the baseline minimum RAM? Again, on my desktop with 24 GB of RAM percentage-wise "low memory use" will obviously differ. How are you objectively benchmarking "fast"? What is the objectively-defined cut off point of "too many features"? What you may think has too many features may not have all the features that I or someone else might want. So as the GP stated the term is effectively meaningless.

Re:Lightweight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46834447)

There's this rule I read on... slashdot. Truly brilliant.

Ask yourself: would anyone say the opposite? If not, then the statement is marketing fluff and should be ignored. It doesn't convey any information.

So: "Lumina aims to be lightweight, stable, fast-running, and FreeDesktop.org/XDG compliant." --> Lumina aims to be bloated, unstable, slow and not FreeDesktop.org/XDG compliant. Right...

The only part of this worth reading is that they want it to be freedesktop compliant.

Start a new DE (0)

the_cosmocat (1009803) | about 6 months ago | (#46833865)

I also want to start a new Desktop Environnement.
My goal will be to make it heavyweight, unstable, slow-running, and compliant with nothing!
The goal of all good Desktop Environnement!

Who want to help me?

Jokes apart. They all promise that and time passing they all end far away of....

Re:Start a new DE (2)

jones_supa (887896) | about 6 months ago | (#46834003)

My goal will be to make it heavyweight, unstable, slow-running, and compliant with nothing!

I cringe how much that sounds like Unity. ;)

NIH syndrome (1, Interesting)

bmo (77928) | about 6 months ago | (#46833939)

This is great and all, but I really don't see any reason to reinvent the wheel besides anal-retentiveness about licenses and Not Invented Here. KDE's libs (and the Qt they're using) are LGPL.

KDE license requirements (a partial list)

LGPL version 2.1 as listed in kdelibs/COPYING.LIB or later
LGPL version 2.1, or version 3 or later versions approved by the membership of KDE e.V.
BSD license as listed below.
Ensure that the BSD license does not contain the so called 'advertisement clause'.

Qt license for free software is LGPL or GPL 3.0.

Qt is available under three different licensing options designed to accommodate the needs of our various users.

Qt licensed under our commercial license agreement is appropriate for development of proprietary/commercial software where you do not want to share any source code with third parties or otherwise cannot comply with the terms of the GNU LGPL version 2.1 or GNU GPL version 3.0.

Qt licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2.1 is appropriate for the development of Qt applications provided you can comply with the terms and conditions of the GNU LGPL version 2.1.

Qt licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL) version 3.0 is appropriate for the development of Qt applications where you wish to use such applications in combination with software subject to the terms of the GNU GPL version 3.0 or where you are otherwise willing to comply with the terms of the GNU GPL version 3.0.

Documentation for free software based on Qt is FDL.

The argument that there isn't already another desktop based on Qt is obviated by the existence of the Razor desktop, which could really use the extra development help. Why start from scratch when you already have this?

http://razor-qt.org/ [razor-qt.org]

This reeks of Not Invented Here syndrome.

--
BMO

Re:NIH syndrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46834279)

Are you ceding giving the GPL Projects to the BSDs...Copyright Assignment...

Screenshots? (1)

ikhider (2837593) | about 6 months ago | (#46834027)

What does the alpha look like?

Circle of Life (1)

organgtool (966989) | about 6 months ago | (#46834103)

Lumina aims to be lightweight, stable, fast-running, and FreeDesktop.org/XDG compliant.

I have no doubt that it will start out that way. And then after a few years of development to achieve feature-parity with other window managers, it will likely become just as bloated, buggy, and sluggish as the rest of the window managers.

linux fail reality (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46834165)

I learned today why no sane company uses linux
the linux people are constantly changing their software, but they don't include drivers for old or new stuff consistently
so, if you are selling a product with an embedded mother board running linux, and you buy a few hundred motherboards a year for that product, after a few years you have huge issues syncing the new motherboards and the linux

anyone who doesn't understand why this is an issue, unless you are a student, you are not well informed enough to comment

Beta Sucks (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46834391)

You're right. This is why Linux has been such a flop in the embedded market, and Windows has retained the same interface and driver model for twenty years.

Re:linux fail reality (1)

Guy Harris (3803) | about 6 months ago | (#46834445)

I learned today why no sane company uses linux

Given that this is a desktop environment for FreeBSD, atop which PC-BSD is based, not Linux (it might also work on Linux, but I presume that's not the primary goal), that's not relevant to this article (and also involves labeling a large number of significant and successful companies "insane", but that's probably your intent).

Re:linux fail reality (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 6 months ago | (#46834629)

First of all, this story is about BSD, not linux.

Second of all, Linux *does* include drivers for new and old stuff. It does not generally speaking, include closed source drivers. So, if you are using open source drivers that are in the kernel today, you're A-Ok.

I've had several cheap motherboards that never worked with windows XP or above due to sound issues, but all of them worked perfectly in Ubuntu Linux. They were set up back in 2006, and are still working with the most current version of Ubuntu. That's pretty good I'd say. Of course you mileage may vary, depending on the motherboard, and the open source drivers available for it.

And then you have the various governments that have moved over from windows:

http://linux.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]

lightweight, stable, fast-running are you joking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46834225)

It is build on QT, there is no way it is lightweight, stable, fast-running, especially the last two. Not to mention, QT is ugly looking.

"BSD-licensed"? (1)

Guy Harris (3803) | about 6 months ago | (#46834423)

The PC-BSD project is developing a new open source (BSD license) desktop environment from scratch. The name of the project is Lumina and it will be based around the Qt toolkit

OK, so they're developing a BSD-licensed desktop environment atop a GPL v3/LGPL v2.1-licensed toolkit [qt-project.org] , right?

Re:"BSD-licensed"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46834739)

LGPL is pretty relaxed - you could build a closed source project on top of it so long as you provide object files so that users can relink if they wish.

More choice == good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46834519)

I'm grateful to have so much choice in the *nix world, and you should be too.

When you forget that, consider your situation with ISPs.

Ken Moore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46834537)

I think it's actually Kris Moore, not Ken Moore.

Great idea !!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46834765)

With some desktop environments asking for linux-specific features, it seems like a good idea for them to keep their own, hopefully light but workable, environment. Hopefully they will also be adding FreeBSD-specific features.

I like Motif. (1)

pigiron (104729) | about 6 months ago | (#46835007)

nt

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?