Why FreeBSD doesn't have a Gnome3 port?

iijima yoshino iijimayoshino at gmail.com
Fri Dec 6 11:21:06 UTC 2013

在 2013-12-06五的 09:13 +0100,Luca Ferrari写道:
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:30 PM, iijima yoshino <iijimayoshino at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Even the OpenBSD team accepts the Gnome3 ...
> > It seems the FreeBSD towards to a server-oriented way.
> >
> Why server oriented, just because gnome3 is not supported? Gnome3 is
> only _a_ desktop among the others. So who is making FreeBSD more
> "towards a server", FreeBSD itself or Gnome 3 that refuses to adopt
> other non-linux facilities?
> If other unixes have gnome3 it simply means they have manpower and
> interest to port it. Not being a gnome3 user (actually, a gnome user
> at all), I don't care about porting a desktop that is not interested
> in being portable.
> Luca

Oh, no , no.
Just the FreeBSD team do less work on desktops than servers, would you
agree? The users can decide their machines run like desktops or servers.
By default, most distributions have a default DE after installation or
on their live images. I think they should be regarded as
desktop-oriented. On the other hand, it's O.K. to call FreeBSD
server-oriented, right?
Everything we talk about here is open source. About portability, it more
means interest. I'm not a developer, but I just know if one have
interest in doing something. And we could not request every developer to
put the portability No.1 when they try to write something. If I consider
about Linux/BSD, why don't Win/Mac/Solaries/Minix/Haiku/MenutOS... We do
everything for ourselves, then the others.
The coder writes the code. When another coder faces to the code, what
could he/she do if not satisfied? Change and make it better, or just no

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list