Make this install on modern laptops. I'm tired of being recommended five year-old Thinkpads.
Fix those and I would consider overwriting my Ubuntu installation
I'm not trying to sound harsh and just have to respectfully disagree.
I don't use Lumina because I don't use DEs, but the looks of it are just right. It's not a regression like most "styles" these days where it's impossible to know half the time what's an interactive widget, or why suddenly the designers think large empty white spaces and large widgets and titlebars are a feature. If I'm at a desktop, I need a desktop environment, not a tablet experience.
In fairness, that probably means your preferences will be very different from those people who actually do use desktop environments.
I also think a lot of people (myself included) have a certain nostalgia for older, leaner desktop environments. That doesn't mean they can't be designed better, with more polish, using those same older design cues.
What you call polishing is just breaking familiar old-simple and building new-super-innovated-final-solution each year. Leave us power users alone, you hipsters!
I wish it was only confusing to power users. If it was actually intuitive to end users, it would have a justification. But no. I've yet to see a single user who can wrap their head around Windows 7's virtual libraries and why they're sometimes not acting like a real folder but most of the time do.
> My first language is English,
Did you just mix up polish, as in "polished ui", with Polish, the language of Poland?
I have literally no knowledge or opinion about Limina, but kinda with desktop UIs would attempt to be timeless rather than trying to follow the latest style fads.
I want things to look very 2005 (or even 2001), which is why I use XFCE4 as a desktop environment on xorg / debian, and not a modern "fancy" thing like the latest gnome or KDE.
Though the only interface that I can qualify as timeless is maybe the PS2/3/4 interface XMB (10+ years and still basically the same).
What does that even mean in this context.
[edit: left side scroll bar also]
At the time, I loved the digital librarian and menu system. After leaving and going back a few years later the WS seemed a little too dated for me. I use the context menus in BlackBox on my linux box. OS X seems to be my comfort zone now, which tends to color memory. Though I also found the IB/PB split much faster to work with. That's for sure.
You've got me fired up. I'm installing 4.2 ent in virtualbox now, which will be the newest version I've used :) Thank you!
I think some of the "dated" is that it wasn't very high resolution, or put another way, it really didn't get to evolve into the high resolution / anti-aliased world we live in today. I've seen multiple attempts at redoing the icons in a modern setting and many of them look great. I particularly like the old folders. The menus suffer from the same problem, but more from a modern font choice scenario.
For me, OS X stripped a lot of the NeXT goodness to appease Mac lovers. I'm just not a fan of a UI designed for a 9" screen that really should have a better menu system. Recently, I've seen some 3rd party software that simulates part of the old NeXTSTEP menu system. Sadly, it doesn't seem to do the tear-offs.
I guess OS X is loads better than Windows, but it sure isn't my favorite. My two big "not working" projects are an agent oriented programing language and some form of modernized NeXTSTEP UI on OpenBSD. Sadly, more likely to do the former rather than the later.
The dated part for me is having to setup the OS for some workflows that have come about since NS days. Some things for scroll wheels not getting recognized out of the box and other polish. WS is great, though I'd change the Drag and Drop just a little. My memory of WS must have tarnished or faded some over the years, because it was and is really easy to work with.
I'll likely install the developer cd this weekend.
Thanks, again, for getting me to reinstall.
On a side note, there are commercial projects that use GNUstep. I use Hopper, a disassembler, that uses GNUstep.
From the developer training I still remember one statement in particular, "Even if NS isn't around in a few years, there will be a company that deeply understands what we do and they will do it." I guess that prophetically was OS X (at least in part).
I haven't been able to figure out the networking. I have the ne2k driver, but it doesn't seem to install. I suppose the copy I have is somehow corrupted.
IMHO: come up with a set of initial will-thought-out UI design choices that follow an internal logic, then evolve thoughtfully (and conservatively) in a way that respects those choices.
That has the added bonus of not constantly invalidating people's investment in learning the desktop environment.
I would expect a environment that follows that would "look" similar in 2005 and 2015, and that wouldn't be a bad thing.
This branch does carry the (work-in-progress) i915 driver updates that bring support for modern Intel graphics (Haswell, Broadwell, Skylake).
Hopefully now after recently hitting 1.0, someone spends some time making it a bit nicer looking (nicer being relative of course -- I tend to like simpler desktop designs).
Has it got kernel/userland ASLR yet?
On what basis are these claims made? I'm tired of hearing this excuse trotted out every time someone posts about ZFS or ASLR.
ZFS (or a filesystem possessing many of the same characteristics) is absolutely still valuable even on desktops. With consumer storage devices reaching ever loftier maximum capacities, data integrity becomes even more important as the loss of that data can have a profound impact on a person's life.
Given the questionable quality of hardware in many consumer devices, having a filesystem that detects corruption as it is happening, and works to ensure that it is corrected automatically when possible, seems like an obvious win.
While a typical consumer is unlikely to have a ZFS raid device even if they had ZFS, they would still benefit from all of the other protections it offers. It should be fairly telling that Apple is adopting many of the same technologies ZFS offers in their own consumer filesystem (except, regrettably, checksumming) because they too understand that it does matter.
As for ASLR, that's important too because it's yet another mitigation tool to make it less likely that an individual system is compromised. Haven't the past few years of various malware/ransomware announcements been enough? We should consider every practical tool available at our disposal to mitigate such attacks as valuable.
Then you either don't know about snapshots, don't care about data integrity, or have a backup system in place and don't want to replace it with:
zfs send zroot@snap63 | gzip > /mnt/remotebackup/snap63.gz
In any case, they could also just include the keys somewhere in trueos.org, which does support HTTPS.
There is a very big lack of manpower, lack of designers, lack of general availability from sysadmins or developers competent at UX.
It saddens me greatly. I used to take care of releases, outreach and UX but focusing on my company means I don't have the time to do that anymore. Despite taking great care to reduce the bus factor as much as possible, right now, LXQt is stuck without a release because there's nobody that both cares about the project and has the time and skills to do this kind of stuff.
This is how the Linux desktop dies. A couple of "big" players doing their own thing and a plethora of small players never trying to partner up with similar projects. LXQt was successful for a long time because it was two small projects that merged into a larger one, but people move on and the momentum gets lost.
For a long time, starting with Slackware 2.0 and for around 10 years, I wanted to use fully use GNU/Linux and used most of the distributions until eventually settling on Ubuntu. Which I only use on a travel netbook anyway.
As someone that is focused on UX and the whole desktop stack, never found a UNIX that cared about the user desktop experience.
Compared to Atari, Amiga, BeOS or even Windows.
NextSTEP was probably the closest to it, but even its UNIX underpinnings were more a side effect to speed up its development and make it easy to port software than anything else.
So my daily OSes have become Windows, OS X and Android. The fact that Apple and Google have a UNIX kernel is totally irrelevant for the programming languages I make use of.
Sorry about LxQt. Wish I had some Qt experience to help out
It would not only ensure that LXQt's torch is carried on but also set a great example to all other open source projects that merging provides as great a solution as forking does, although for opposite problems.
The Razor-Qt merge wasn't an easy project - it took us almost 6 months to complete.
So much for Freedesktop standardization...
I wonder why not Xfce, specifically. Of all the DEs out there, it seems most complete in a sense of being an actual DE, with the usual configurability and stock apps that one would expect (a great file manager, for one). But at the same time, it's not the mammoth that Gnome and KDE are, gets out of the way easily enough, and doesn't demand that applications are aware of its existence beyond following XDG specs.
I'm running Xfce on two systems, one of which is Gentoo (in the default OpenRC configuration, no systemd), and the other is FreeBSD. Neither has Gnome installed - just recently I had to actually install gconf to do something, as a matter of fact, and was surprised that it wasn't there - but they handle Xfce just fine.
I believe it used Gnome settings daemon at some point, but it has its own these days.
That makes no sense to me, given that it runs on Linux as well as BSD.
From what I've read it relies on Qt, Fluxbox, XScreensaver etc, which are hardly BSD based components.
>as opposed to the Linux model where everything is developed independently and then glued together to form a distro.
What's the difference here ?
Lumina is developed independently, the components Lumina builds upon are developed independently of Lumina, it is then glued together with PC-BSD into TrueOS.
I would guess the primary reason is licensing. The other is a motivation to integrate with FreeBD/TrueOS specific things like ZFS and their administration tools.
OpenBSD has its own unique niche, but I don't see what great need PCBSD fills that FreeBSD wasn't already doing.
This is a valid way to contribute to *NIX -- downstreams that push and pull code to evolve the entire ecosystem.
I know they're affiliated with PC-BSD, and I know that PC-BSD is a separate system, but beyond that, I'm lost.
It looks like it may be an RHEL/Fedora thing, with PC-BSD being stable and rock-solid, and TrueOS being bleeding edge. But I could be wrong.
Also, while Lumina looks kind of nice, if I installed this, my next step would be installing either XFCE (the best full-on DE out there) or i3 (the best tiled WM out there).
> PC-BSD being stable and rock-solid, and TrueOS being bleeding edge. But I could be wrong.
TrueOS was basically the same as PC-BSD but for servers.
An evolved product from the same developers.
The hysteria over Intel ME amuses me. The clamor should be for a simple on/off switch to always be present in the BIOS/EFI.
B) there is not yet a switch ... So what do we do now while we wait?
The real innovation lies in SysAdm:
A new way to manage your Server, Desktop or Cloud-based system. By exposing an API via encrypted REST or WebSockets, it is now possible to remotely control all aspects of your machine, including management of software, updates, boot environments, users, backups, and more.
Truly a flagship FreeBSD "distro".