# Which DE is more developed for FreeBSD



## davetrotteruk (Jun 22, 2010)

I don't know if this is posted in the right place but I want to make this clear its not one of the "Gnome vs KDE vs XFCE ..." threads i already know what i like but i want to know if one is more developed to such an extent to sway my position. 
Thanks


----------



## graudeejs (Jun 22, 2010)

custom ones 
[I use fvwm2-devel, urxvt, opera, epdfview, gpicview, hsetroot....]


----------



## adamk (Jun 22, 2010)

The DEs are really all developed for linux and then ported to FreeBSD.  None of them are really even remotely developed for FreeBSD.


----------



## vermaden (Jun 22, 2010)

davetrotteruk said:
			
		

> Which DE is more developed for FreeBSD


None.


----------



## dennylin93 (Jun 22, 2010)

They all work well, so just pick your favourite one.


----------



## sixtydoses (Jun 22, 2010)

http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=11663

Hehe


----------



## kpedersen (Jun 22, 2010)

They all barely work, so just pick your favourite one.


----------



## fronclynne (Jun 22, 2010)

Unless you're wedded to some KDE thingumbobber, the gtk/gnome stuff seems more generally useful (I'm thinking of big blocky stuff that lots of pipples installs like Firefox, Openoffice).  That said, I really strongly object to all the frivolous "services" that even a supposedly light-weight DE (like XFCE4) wants to run.

With opera running from top: 
	
	



```
41 processes:  1 running, 40 sleeping
CPU:  0.2% user,  0.0% nice,  0.4% system,  0.0% interrupt, 99.4% idle
```
Whereas the little linux laptop of my girlfriend (running XFCE4) has at least 3x that many daemons running just to get to a desktop:

```
Tasks: 160 total,   5 running, 155 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
Cpu(s): 41.1%us,  7.9%sy, 48.7%ni,  2.1%id,  0.0%wa,  0.2%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
```

I understand the argument that having all this idle processing power providing special things like an application that makes a "beep" every time you click the "honk" button is just usin' what God gave you, but:  bleh.


----------



## expl (Jun 22, 2010)

davetrotteruk said:
			
		

> Which DE is more developed for FreeBSD



The one you write yourself while using FreeBSD to do it.


----------



## kpedersen (Jun 22, 2010)

expl said:
			
		

> The one you write yourself while using FreeBSD to do it.



Thats OpenCDE then,

It is 3% complete but 100% developed on FreeBSD.

The icons were done in Microsoft Paint, but I count them as resources


----------



## vdvluc (Jun 22, 2010)

kpedersen said:
			
		

> The icons were done in Microsoft Paint



Heheh nice!


----------



## sixtydoses (Jun 23, 2010)

kpedersen said:
			
		

> Thats OpenCDE then,
> 
> It is 3% complete but 100% developed on FreeBSD.
> 
> The icons were done in Microsoft Paint, but I count them as resources



Post #6.


----------



## kpedersen (Jun 23, 2010)

Lol yup, I did notice.

Post #7 certainly includes OpenCDE haha


----------



## sixtydoses (Jun 23, 2010)

kpedersen said:
			
		

> Lol yup, I did notice.
> 
> Post #7 certainly includes OpenCDE haha



I love being subtle and mysterious..


----------



## aragon (Jun 23, 2010)

Well, scrotwm is written by OpenBSD devs and I doubt there are many linux users using it, but I'd hardly say it's written for any BSD specifically.  The only OpenBSD specific part of it is the Makefile.


----------



## nekoexmachina (Jun 23, 2010)

I do not understand what is exactly 'de written for some_specific_OS'.
DE should be written with some standarts in mind, that should be somehow supported by OS.


----------



## fronclynne (Jun 23, 2010)

*Or at least can we have our dual case back?*



			
				adamk said:
			
		

> The DEs are really all developed for linux and then ported to FreeBSD.  None of them are really even remotely developed for FreeBSD.



I suspect (though this is just my conceit) that "developed" means "works well or properly".  The past tense rather than the present perfect, at least sensibly.

In that vein:  curse you, English grammar!  I want an aorist.


----------



## Oxyd (Jun 23, 2010)

I've been using KDE 3, KDE 4 and Xfce4 on FreeBSD and I don't think I noticed any blatant Linux-isms -- as in, stuff that only works well when run on Linux. OTOH, Gnome is said to have some problems on FreeBSD, but I never tried Gnome.

What's the point of this question anyway? Just install the DE that you're interested in, and see for yourself how well it works.


----------



## davetrotteruk (Jun 24, 2010)

thanks i think i will try something very base level like xmonad


----------



## LeFroid (Jul 1, 2010)

I just started running KDE and its been pretty good, although sort of laggy with the desktop effects enabled. Didn't find any apps that don't work yet (except for Amarok, but Clementine is much better anyway).


----------



## purgatori (Jul 5, 2010)

Who needs a DE?


----------



## nekoexmachina (Jul 5, 2010)

> Who needs a DE?


Even if you are running tty-only, you already have your own desktop environment


----------



## purgatori (Jul 5, 2010)

nekoexmachina said:
			
		

> Even if you are running tty-only, you already have your own desktop environment



Really? How do you figure?

Personally, I'm running xmonad with a bunch of terminals... but I don't really consider it a 'desktop environment.' Perhaps my definition is off.


----------



## nekoexmachina (Jul 5, 2010)

> Really? How do you figure?


DE definition: collection of software t whoops googled it, it only refers to graphical sw integrated one with another %(
But in my mind it was any set of sw integrated one with another to work perfectly, and UNIX is by-design like that.


----------



## ckester (Jul 5, 2010)

fronclynne said:
			
		

> Unless you're wedded to some KDE thingumbobber, the gtk/gnome stuff seems more generally useful (I'm thinking of big blocky stuff that lots of pipples installs like Firefox, Openoffice).  That said, I really strongly object to all the frivolous "services" that even a supposedly light-weight DE (like XFCE4) wants to run.



I share your objection and don't care for "desktop environments" because of it.

I also have a visceral dislike for monolithic, everything-but-the-kitchen-sink packages.  I prefer to mix and match a set of smaller, more independent tools chosen to meet my own peculiar needs and tastes.  Currently this means the musca window manager and some GTK+ apps.  I've removed all Qt apps from my machine (no more bizarre buildtools chain!)  Never had Gnome or KDE on this machine.  I'm using a few pieces from XFCE and ROX however, and probably should re-examine them to see if they're pulling in some dependencies I'd rather not have.


----------



## ckester (Jul 5, 2010)

I would define a "desktop environment" to mean a bundled suite of applications and services along with a window manager.  

So I guess I agree with purgatori and wouldn't call a bunch of terminal emulators running under xmonad a DE.  The crucial point is whether someone else has chosen the components for you and put them together in a suite you can download and install.


----------

