# GNOME 3 Desktop Environment



## sk8harddiefast (Mar 26, 2014)

Well I know that is discussed very much on this forums but I want to ask some questions and tell my opinion. Before some days I show GNOME 3 on a laptop for first time. It was amazing. It was so shiny  So I made a search about GNOME 3 on FreeBSD. I saw the effort of some people who made it to port it. Why all this project just died? The last change was before two years. Is anyone who is serious interested to port GNOME 3 on FreeBSD? As I understood is difficult with a lot of Linuxisms and a lot of ports. But GNOME 2 is dead and GNOME 3 is so nice looking. FreeBSD should follow the future and don't stay on the same situation. There is a huge list of Desktop Environments like Razor-QT, Pantheon Desktop, Cinnamon, GNOME 3, x11/kde4, x11/mate, x11-wm/xfce4, x11/lxde-meta etc but only half of them are ported to FreeBSD as you see. Isn't time to go forward with better Desktop experience?
Yes, yes. I know. FreeBSD is a server OS and this is his first goal. I don't disagree with this but FreeBSD desktops are thousands. Not one or two or three. So shouldn't some things to go further? I don't tell to change his goals or the way his acts. I say to have more options like more Desktop environments, a GUI network manager, a GUI Bluetooth manager and finally an automounter that sees every device we plug just like that.


----------



## SirDice (Mar 26, 2014)

I think one of the problems with a lack of interest is because there's no port in the regular ports tree yet. There is marcuscom but that does indeed seem to have stopped around 3.6. 
As I remember GNOME 3 was supposed to be added to the ports tree around 3.0.1-ish already. But I think one of the major hurdles was getting GNOME 2 and 3 to play nice together in the tree. If I remember correctly they depended on different, incompatible, versions on many of the same dependencies. I for one would welcome a chance to play with 3  but I don't want to see GNOME 2 disappear from the ports tree at the same time.


----------



## sk8harddiefast (Mar 26, 2014)

Well to say the truth x11/gnome2 is buggy and dead. But: x11/mate is the GNOME 2 continue so in practice GNOME 2 is not dead. Is like OpenSolaris. Died. Yes. But OpenIndiana in fact is OpenSolaris and is still alive.
So we could balance between mate and GNOME 3. I believe that almost none uses GNOME 2 anymore and everyone went to Mate Desktop environment. Is really solid and has the same sense with GNOME 2. In the past, I was a GNOME 2 user and now I am a Mate user and I don't see differences. Same gui, same options. Just Mate is more with the air of today and growing very fast. In the other side, GNOME 3 is a Desktop Environment that should exist on ports. Is the Desktop experience of today's technology and is not the only one. Pantheon Desktop and Cinnamon Desktop follows behind.
Also an idea. Why we do not port  marcuscom GNOME 3.6 and start step by step to update all ports to finally go to 3.12. This way we will fix problems and we already have a base to do that. To port something is more difficult to update it. Also updating it we can fix stuff and make it solid.


----------



## sk8harddiefast (Mar 27, 2014)

Ok. I set up a fast Debian on a virtual machine and I build GNOME 3. One word. Wow! It is just amazing! Maybe the best looking Desktop Environment ever made! If you don't use it, you have no idea what you lose! This Desktop Environment MUST be ported to FreeBSD for sure!


----------



## NuSkooler (Mar 27, 2014)

I've updated a bunch of ports from Marcus and Olivier repos as part of my work towards a up-to-date Plank. I'll try to remember to copy more of them over to my Google code hosting SVN. They may be useful to you.


----------



## sk8harddiefast (Mar 27, 2014)

Νot only for me  Also please don't create another `svn`. Port natively the ports to the ports tree. The reason is that always, everyone has the possibility not only to install it but to update it if he wants too. The reason that GNOME 3 never go further was exactly this. Remained as `svn` and never ported to ports.


> I think one of the problems with a lack of interest is because there's no port in the regular ports tree yet.


----------



## SirDice (Mar 27, 2014)

sk8harddiefast said:
			
		

> I believe that almost none uses GNOME 2 anymore and everyone went to Mate Desktop environment.


I passed my RHCSA exam yesterday and I can assure you that RHEL 6 still uses GNOME 2.28 by default. And I don't see that changing anytime soon.


----------



## kpa (Mar 27, 2014)

You don't really seem to understand why GNOME 3 isn't in the ports tree yet. It is highly experimental and conflicts badly with the existing ports in the tree. The portmgr team that ultimately decides what goes into the tree are very reluctant to import anything that would compromise the intergrity of the existing ports. Developing GNOME outside the tree as it is done now is really the only way until the ports tree is fixed into a better shape where this type of experimental work could be imported in an incomplete state without creating a huge mess.

Also consider that there's only a limited amount of people with commit rights to the ports tree and those rights are not given to just anybody. Imagine trying to do development by having to constantly ask someone else to commit your day's work? I wouldn't do it.


----------



## sk8harddiefast (Mar 27, 2014)

Yes but we are standing behind the sun on some things. All OS (Linux, Windows, even Solaris and OpenIndiana) they have regular automount. The only OS that just don't have, is us. Camera support is extremely limited. You can make the camera to work. Ok. I show my face with multimedia/pwcview. Then what? Use multimedia/vlc? Maybe yes just to take a pic. But camera is there for communicate with people and this don't happen on BSD. Mozilla cannot use it and hangouts not supported yet. Ok. I know that Google never released a BSD version of hangouts but this is the same with www/linux-f10-flashplugin11. Isn't? On Flash player we found a way. On hangouts why not?
Let's go further. Apps, tools etc. Tell me the truth. Is possible to write 500 config files, run two terminals, troubleshoot, read tutorials and handbook just to make Bluetooth to work? The humanity discover GUI because this method was very difficult for a simple thing like to connect a keyboard. The same with network manager but over there things are simple. More simple even from Linux and a GUI network manager isn't necessary except if you use a laptop and you need to change easy from Ethernet to wireless. But still could be better to have this option. As we have it on wifi with net-mgmt/wifimgr. Now go on docks. Only one dock works right. x11/wbar. All the others or crash, or have problems. I wish that @@NuSkooler will made it and bring on FreeBSD an really easy, simple and nice dockbar (Plank dockbar). Ok. On Desktop environments, I told already that missing serious DE that shouldn't.
FreeBSD is the right way that an operating system must act. Under the hood, is much better than Linux. Has the right philosophy and has the best package manager, the best way to set flags, the best way to rebuild and configure a custom kernel. Has the right way to set up the network and the best way to handle services. But trying to install a FreeBSD on a desktop or on a laptop is like trying to port an OS and this is wrong. It should just work. Automount should exist. Camera should communicate and be workable as all the other operating systems and DE with hardware acceleration like Cinnamon, GNOME 3 and Pantheon Desktop also should be ported. I never told to be Linux. Just I tell that we should mature a little on desktop experience. Isn't time to do some things more brilliant or have more choises?


> You don't really seem to understand why GNOME 3 isn't in the ports tree yet. It is highly experimental and conflicts badly with the existing ports in the tree. The portmgr team that ultimately decides what goes into the tree are very reluctant to import anything that would compromise the intergrity of the existing ports. Developing GNOME outside the tree as it is done now is really the only way until the ports tree is fixed into a better shape where this type of experimental work could be imported in an incomplete state without creating a huge mess.
> 
> Also consider that there's only a limited amount of people with commit rights to the ports tree and those rights are not given to just anybody. Imagine trying to do development by having to constantly ask someone else to commit your day's work? I wouldn't do it.


Ok. I understand that and I have no problem to run something with svn. I made it with x11-themes/gtk-blueprint-engine before to be ported. But even this stopped before two years. If I will try it now, I know from now that just will no work. Somewhere I will take an error that stops the procedure. Also the is another documentation how to port GNOME 3 on FreeBSD into GNOME site and into PCBSD forum and both of them seems hard and in the end you don't know which way is the right one.


----------



## j0hn (Apr 5, 2014)

I'm not even sure why GNOME 3 is being focused on at this point anyways. While I disagree with many people saying whats available now for FreeBSD is "good enough" I don't think in advancing FreeBSD GNOME 3 needs to be a vital part of the gameplan. There are many other routes that can be taken. While its nice to have new options I guess this is just my own opinion on the matter. Especially considering everyone is pretty much now moving towards EGL based Windowing Systems with their own Desktop Enviornments such as Surfaceflinger with Android or Ubuntu Unity with Mir. So I could see FreeBSD getting an EGL based Windowing System with either a Desktop Enviornment that works with it or a port of one.


----------



## beatgammit (Apr 6, 2014)

j0hn said:
			
		

> So I could see FreeBSD getting an EGL based Windowing System with either a Desktop Enviornment that works with it or a port of one.



GNOME 3.12 was supposed to get official wayland support, but it was pushed back to 3.14 because they didn't want to miss the release date. Porting wayland to FreeBSD would be awesome, but there's not much incentive, especially since most, if not all, desktop environments that can run on wayland also run on X. KDE also has experimental support for running on wayland.

It seems OpenBSD has GNOME 3.12 in its ports tree (I don't use OpenBSD, so I'm not sure if this source is reputable), so it shouldn't be too difficult to get it running on FreeBSD.

However, I think porting GNOME 3 is a bit low on the priority list, especially since suspend/resume doesn't even work reliably (at all?).


----------



## j0hn (Apr 7, 2014)

beatgammit said:
			
		

> j0hn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree with you about GNOME 3. However, I would probably have a custom EGL Windowing system for specifically designed for BSD. If Apple, Canonical and Google can do it, I'm sure the open source community can do it too. Why tie ourselves down to Wayland and X? New options for BSD for Desktop Enviornments and Windowing Systems that is new and fresh and not something we've seen on Linux would be the road to travel down IMO. EGL support is available on BSD so its just a matter of now someone coding a new Windowing System alternative to X. The thing about most other EGL Windowing Systems such as Surfaceflinger, Wayland or Mir is that they weren't made with BSD in mind. They were specifically designed for Linux. So why not have a EGL Windowing System specificially designed for BSD and have a DE to go along with it? Sounds hard but I'm sure its easier than dealing with Linuxisms and craziness when porting software like GNOME 3 or Wayland.


----------



## NuSkooler (Apr 7, 2014)

While I don't think a BSD-only EGL is a bad ideal, I'm curious what sort of "Linuxisms" in Wayland for example would be large hurdles? From what I've seen, Linux and the BSD's almost always have a equivalent technology or API, but with different names and semantics. These types of things simply need abstraction, which can likely co-exist in the same repo (assuming the Linux guys allow for such). I read the comments on the "12 patches" for BSD Wayland and they didn't seem against it, though they seemed to prefer true abstractions vs a #ifdef nightmare, which I understand.


----------



## beatgammit (Apr 8, 2014)

j0hn said:
			
		

> Sounds hard but I'm sure its easier than dealing with Linuxisms and craziness when porting software like GNOME 3 or Wayland.



GNOME 3, yes, but I doubt it would be very difficult for Wayland. GNOME 3 seems to be primarily developed for Fedora/RHEL, whereas Wayland is developed by x.org. Wayland is even licensed under the MIT license, so it's BSD-friendly. I imagine they developed for Linux because it is the most used, but now that its API is stable, all that's required is some manpower to make sure everything works on FreeBSD.

I don't agree that designing a DE from scratch would be better than porting something like Wayland, which would more-or-less allow any DE/WM to run on top of it. The portion of the FreeBSD community that cares about the DE is not large enough (IMO) to support development on building a DE from scratch; even if it was, it would be impossible to get them to rally behind a single design (some may prefer KDE-style, some GNOME 3, some tiling..., not enough man-power to do everything).



			
				NuSkooler said:
			
		

> I'm curious what sort of "Linuxisms" in Wayland for example would be large hurdles



So am I. From what I've read, the Wayland protocol is pretty simple (doesn't rely on Linux cgroups or anything AFAICT), so the main pain point is where it hooks into KMS drivers. FreeBSD now has this, so it's probably just a matter of calling conventions (Linux uses function A, FreeBSD uses function B+C or vice-versa). I haven't gone spelunking in the code so there could be other badness I'm unaware of.


----------



## j0hn (Apr 13, 2014)

beatgammit said:
			
		

> j0hn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Even if Wayland is ported, if people want a modern looking DE running on top of it, they would still need something such as KDE 5 (which is coming soon), GNOME 3, or a GNOME 3 based modification (ie Unity, Cinnamon, etc.) to run on top of it. Only other option would be to heavily modify and fork something that already exists such as lxde or xfce. Wayland in and of itself with whatever already exists for FreeBSD (Lxde, Xfce and GNOME 2) but at this point all of those options along with gtk2 are outdated.


----------



## big_girl (Apr 17, 2014)

IMO, on every level, porting GNOME 3 is a poor use of resources for FreeBSD. They have opposite goals; one is a server, the other tries to imitate the osx GUI and make people who like nice GUIs use it. Further, GNOME 3 did not strike everyone who used GNOME 2 as a step in the right direction. Many people out there, myself included, really despise the look and feel of GNOME 3. When it replaced GNOME 2, I switched to MATE for my Linux boxes.


----------



## sk8harddiefast (Apr 23, 2014)

GNOME 3 is just fine. I hate the way for installing plugins and the way of customization (Is not native but with external app) but for laptop is really easy to use. Easier than using any other Desktop Environment.
Also to be realistic. Most of us we use it as alternative desktop. Yes. And as server too. I don't disagree. But why not to be more flexible as a desktop? I mean that is like an evo. 300hp turbo. 4wheel drive, 2lt engine, beautiful, powerfull but if you want to change the rims, just you have not other options! You have 3-4 that you maybe just don't like them! FreeBSD is like an evo. A very beautiful beast. But looses in some parts. Is not only about GNOME 3. Is about to follow the developments.
Even as server os. This ruined usb flash. Why is so difficult to put it and just mount it on my desktop?  Why I must:

```
1) Open a terminal.
2) ls my /dev
3) Find the usb flash
4) sudo mount_msdosfs /dev/da0s1 /mnt/usb (I wrote it trillion times in my life witch corresponds to one full day of my life of writing the same command)
5) Write the password
6) Mount the flash (if something will not go wrong)
```
And it 's ok with a USB flash.
With my camera? With other devices? What's about cameras? Hangout's? Desktop environments? Network managers? Bluetooth devices?
Server OS doesn't mean all the way that just runs and doing one specific thing. Because is server OS we must abandon the obvious things that we ask from every computer?
To a Server OS that runs a site, one apache server and an NFS, you must lose the possibility of GUI or the option to have any Desktop environment you want? Or to automount a device? Or to have a Bluetooth keyboard just because you hate cables?
Doe's anyone have the time to work a full day to pair a Bluetooth device using 4 terminals? One simple thing that should take not more than 5 minutes? All this things, Linux do them but with the wrong way. That I would like to see is FreeBSD do them also but with the right way. Even Solaris automount devices. That's means that stop from being a server OS or is not stable? 
Also finally one more thing that I want to mention. For me only one thing really sucks on FreeBSD. Power management on laptops. Laptop battery on Windows 4 hours, on Linux 3,5 hours, on FreeBSD one hour!!! With a firefox compile just drained!
With the same logic because FreeBSD is a server OS, will never going to be installed on a laptop. Well yes. It can be installed. But is not workable. Just is not and I feel bad about this.
My English sucks. I don't know if you understand what I am trying to say and I hope to do not misunderstand me


----------



## j0hn (Apr 23, 2014)

Where is the option of NOT using FreeBSD as a server OS and using it as a desktop OS instead? I guess that option isn't there. Not to mention when you talk PC-BSD it would have the same issue as FreeBSD, even though right at the top of the webpage it says "PC-BSD is made for servers and desktops". Ok, yes I'm wrong about needing GNOME 3. Its not needed. Should Wayland be ported, there are compositors which work with Wayland that can be customized. Two of which are Weston and KWin. From there any Desktop Enviornments could be built. In fact, the developers of lxde plan to jump to Wayland eventually and use KWin as the compositor. So at least if FreeBSD and PC-BSD move in the Wayland direction, theres a good chance even if you don't have GNOME 3, you'd still have a new version of lxde which seems to be more popular anyways.


----------



## Tripled (Aug 5, 2014)

http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article& ... 0219085851

Video:
https://www.bsdfrog.org/tmp/undeadly-gnome.webm


----------



## free-and-bsd (Aug 10, 2014)

sk8harddiefast said:
			
		

> GNOME 3 is just fine. I hate the way for installing plugins and the way of customization (Is not native but with external app) but for laptop is really easy to use. Easier than using any other Desktop Environment.
> Also to be realistic. Most of us we use it as alternative desktop. Yes. And as server too. I don't disagree. But why not to be more flexible as a desktop? I mean that is like an evo. 300hp turbo. 4wheel drive, 2lt engine, beautiful, powerfull but if you want to change the rims, just you have not other options! You have 3-4 that you maybe just don't like them! FreeBSD is like an evo. A very beautiful beast. But looses in some parts. Is not only about GNOME 3. Is about to follow the developments.
> Even as server os. This ruined usb flash. Why is so difficult to put it and just mount it on my desktop?  Why I must:
> 
> ...


I don't use FreeBSD as a server OS and _alternative_ desktop -- it is my _desktop of choice_ on all my boxes. There are weighty reasons why I've switched from Linux, too.
And if you have much time and to spare to _follow the developments_ -- all right, why not. But don't forget: things come at a price.
GNOME 3 isn't _awesome_; to call things their proper names, right now it is no more than a display of an _idea_ that may or may not be that good, when finally fully realized -- which it is not yet, and it's a long way still. I have worked enough time with it in my Fedora Linux installations to actually make a fair estimation of it for what it is.
And finally, talking about bluetooth, its functionality is as awful in Linux as it is in FreeBSD. But  on the positive side of it, with wired keyboard one doesn't need changeable batteries, so will cut short one's contributions to the overall junking of the planet... and I ain't kidding.

So, FreeBSD IS a desktop system, and as such is more stable than any Linux I've used before 2 years ago I finally decided to move to FreeBSD. Yes, some manual fine-tuning needed here and there -- but I'm much more content with that, than with Linux stuff.


----------



## zspider (Aug 10, 2014)

free-and-bsd said:
			
		

> sk8harddiefast said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well put.


----------



## free-and-bsd (Aug 10, 2014)

Thanks , @zspider.

Only forgot to mention: for auto mounting there is this nicely working script sysutils/automount by @vermaden, which works on top of devd. Yes, it also takes some manual fine-tuning (if only very little really) to get working -- in which it isn't much different from HAL-based automount in Linux, for the latter also relies on text-based files with mounting rules... I mean, it's either YOU do it, or other people do the same for you to make it appear "automatic" to you, no?

In fact, the management of the ports tree is such a wonderfully done and tremendous piece of job, that I can hardly express my gratitude well enough in these few words. So, while I can fully appreciate the _challenge_ associated with porting even things like GNOME 3 -- that is, the challenge of demonstrating the possibility of it -- it doesn't seem to me to be worth the while.
I mean, you'll have spent a tremendous amount of time on it and find in the end of it that it wasn't really worth it. Although, if you finally manage to port it to FreeBSD and meantime get rid of systemd, that'll be a victory ... But for all I've heard this would go well beyond the definition of just _porting_.


----------



## pkubaj (Aug 12, 2014)

GNOME 3 has been ported to OpenBSD for quite a time, so it's definitely possible. Development ports are available in marcuscom repository, and AFAIK are supposed to land in the main ports tree this summer.
BTW, OpenBSD developers are currently writing a small library for compatibility with software requiring systemd.


----------



## free-and-bsd (Aug 13, 2014)

Hah, interesting . Well, maybe then they'll do Wayland as well. I've just tried GNOME 3 on Wayland with Fedora 21 (nightly build), it kind of works -- in general and in detail, though some times certain things malfunction... But that must all be fixed up until October, the date for the 21 release. It's definitely quicker than X11, the architecture is also interesting. 
...Although, good old things known to work for decades are good to have. Still, new things may be better for developers? So, I'm terribly curious about this Wayland project.


----------



## JX8P (Aug 13, 2014)

GNOME 3.12 runs on FreeBSD and from personal experience, I found it runs well. 

You simply need to merge the MarcusCom ports tree with `marcusmerge`. I'm not sure why GNOME 3.12 hasn't been folded into the master ports tree yet, to be honest. It does not appear to have any instabilities on FreeBSD.


----------



## free-and-bsd (Aug 14, 2014)

Good to know ! Though I'm using now a minimalistic setup for its better configurability... but just to know that things are there is good. Thank you for the info.


----------



## BSDBernd (Aug 15, 2014)

For anyone who wants to quickly get an impression of FreeBSD 10.0 with gnome 3.12: Some people have made a live CD:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/freebsd-gnome-livecd/

It works well, I tested it an hour ago. I don't know what exactly are the features that are missing compared to the linux version, if there are any ...


----------



## free-and-bsd (Aug 19, 2014)

Yes, it works .


----------



## CreativeGPX (Aug 21, 2014)

Regarding the comments about a custom FreeBSD desktop environment: that is being developed already over at PC-BSD. I don't think it's the default yet, but it's packaged with the OS. I think it was called Lumina.

I always attributed this to Linuxisms, but in my experience regardless of the desktop environment that I install on FreeBSD, as soon as I install one, the reliability of the system drops noticeably. Meanwhile, when I install a Linux distribution with that same desktop environment, I have no problems. So, in that sense I think there is a great case for making a desktop environment for FreeBSD in order to improve stability for that set of users.

Also, a desktop environment serves to surface certain abilities and statistics to the user. Making a desktop environment is related to the questions of "What do you want the user to do?" and "What do you want the user to know about?". I think making something for FreeBSD from the ground up, we might answer those questions differently than with Linux. We might also be able to capitalize on different features of the OS or maybe the desktop environment would include utilities related to FreeBSD-specific features.

As for the argument that the the goal of FreeBSD is being a server so desktop environments are not important: I don't think makes a good case for not supporting a high quality desktop environment solution. Yes, if you were running it JUST as a live server, you probably wouldn't have the desktop environment. However, I think it's enormously valuable for a developer to develop on the platform they are developing for. I make a lot of server-based projects. My public-facing server doesn't run a desktop environment. However, my development/design/test machines are running servers so that I can test the project as I work. However, on my development machine, I certainly want a more human-optimized user interface whether it's because I find the window management more productive or whether it's because I want to preview in a browser what my users will see. Because of this, even if being a server is the absolute primary goal of FreeBSD, there is a good case for giving it the option of a strong desktop environment so that developers of server applications, developers of the OS itself, etc. will be likely to be running on it and relying on it on a day-to-day basis. This will lead to their applications being better and will probably also result in them developing on little side things as they find inconvenient tasks in the OS.

The argument against desktop support is circular. There are not enough users/developers to support a feature that will make us appealing to many more users/developers.


----------



## free-and-bsd (Aug 24, 2014)

CreativeGPX said:
			
		

> I always attributed this to Linuxisms, but in my experience regardless of the desktop environment that I install on FreeBSD, as soon as I install one, the reliability of the system drops noticeably. Meanwhile, when I install a Linux distribution with that same desktop environment, I have no problems.


 Well, interestingly, I used to feel the same in the past -- until 2 years ago. Then I got so disappointed by certain things in Linux that I made my decision to move over to FreeBSD... And you know what? Once the firm decision made, the FreeBSD -based DE is the one I find to be more stable and a better user experience in any case. 
So maybe you're right, and this is a Linuxism in you ?


----------



## CreativeGPX (Aug 25, 2014)

free-and-bsd said:
			
		

> CreativeGPX said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Definitely not that, as I am not a Linux person.  I think it might be related to the chosen DE. Enlightenment and Gnome3 are unpredictably unstable. Cinnamon and KDE seem to have definite bugs (for example, every time I opened an attachment in Gmail in Chromium, the whole DE crashed). So far, the others (I've been trying everything that I can) seem relatively stable.


----------



## sulman (Aug 25, 2014)

free-and-bsd said:
			
		

> CreativeGPX said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think the system gets an order of magnitude more complex the moment you have a 'heavy' DE installed, but I've never known FreeBSD be less reliable - Linux (I run Gentoo and Arch) can both be very quirky on their bad days. 

By the way, Funtoo (a Gentoo cousin) have got Gnome 3.12 working with no dependencies on systemd, which is an interesting example of what can be done.


----------



## pkubaj (Aug 25, 2014)

AFAIK systemd is only an optional dependency for GNOME, that is using systemd will make it possible to manage it via GNOME settings, but it's not required for GNOME to actually work.


----------



## free-and-bsd (Aug 26, 2014)

CreativeGPX said:
			
		

> I think it might be related to the chosen DE. Enlightenment and Gnome3 are unpredictably unstable. Cinnamon and KDE seem to have definite bugs (for example, every time I opened an attachment in Gmail in Chromium, the whole DE crashed). So far, the others (I've been trying everything that I can) seem relatively stable.


The same here . And most importantly, apart from natural admiration about KDE, I soon found out that I actually didn't need most of its complexity... So I ended up with fvwm2 + chosen applications. I even wonder, with such setup will I actually be needing Wayland? Or will fvwm2 be ported to Wayland?


----------

