Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Announcing GNOME 2.4.0 for FreeBSD

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the gooey-environments dept.

Dan writes "FreeBSD's Joe Marcus Clarke says that GNOME 2.4.0 is now available for FreeBSD. Unfortunately, due to timing issues with FreeBSD 4.9-RELEASE, it will not make it into the official ports tree until after 4.9 is released (looks like early October right now). In the meantime, you can get to it from his CVS tree. For those without CVS access, he has periodic tarballs made, and are downloadable from the same URL. You should also download the marcusmerge script to aid in merging his ports tree with the official tree. If you already have a copy of the script, download it again because things have changed." Update: 09/18 15:25 GMT by M : FreeBSD's Joe Marcus Clarke says due to popular demand, but more importantly to the fact that 4.9-RELEASE has been pushed back at least two weeks, GNOME 2.40 has been merged into the ports tree.

13 of 108 comments (clear)

  1. Re:FreeBSD? by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yeah, the ones still stuck on FreeBsd.

    Still there's neat things about BSD kernel.

    1: Security levels
    2: Jail
    3: PF - OS detection leading to modification of data stream (MS system lead to Linux ISO site)
    4: Stable, high performance FS
    5: Runs most linux junk (look at sourceforge, most are abandonware). Just doesnt run stuff that depends on proc unless you enable /proc (idiot)
    6: Lot more quotas over users than you have in Linux

    Those few features keep certain users on BSD. I figure Linux might get all those features. Still, if you want a really good system, get AIX. Linux and BSD is a good standby for cutting cost as long as you can deal with the limited feature set.

    --
  2. FreeBSD! by TitaniumFox · · Score: 4, Funny

    BSD trolls are rendered obsolete.

    Take this! *KAPOW*

    And that! *BOFF*

    Holy schnikes, Batman! The Penguin is getting away!

    Oh, no he's not, Robin! *BLAM*

    [FreeBSD runs quite nicely on my laptop, thanks. ;)]

    --
    -- I'd say your post was about 3 monkeys, 18 minutes.
    1. Re:FreeBSD! by satanami69 · · Score: 3, Funny

      FreeBSD runs quite nicely on my laptop
      Why do you leave your laptop in your closet?

      Oh, wait, you don't use FreeBSD as a server. I was wondering why the hell Gnome is there.

      --
      I really hate Dan Patrick.
  3. FreeBSD won't die by Rhinobird · · Score: 5, Funny

    FreeBSD won't die if people keep porting software to it. So, cut it out people

    --
    If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
  4. pf is (d), All of the above. by TitaniumFox · · Score: 4, Informative

    PF is [Open|Net|Free]BSD. FreeBSD PF news.

    FreeBSD homepage.

    NetBSD PF news.

    NetBSD PF homepage.

    --
    -- I'd say your post was about 3 monkeys, 18 minutes.
    1. Re:pf is (d), All of the above. by psxndc · · Score: 4, Informative
      PF is purely an OpenBSD project that has been ported to the others. It was written because Darren Reed changed the license of ipf to something Theo (of OpenBSD) didn't agree with. FreeBSD and NetBSD kept using ipf while the OpenBSD crew wrote their own packet filter. Then the other two ported it.

      The Darren/Theo head butting resulted in this classic posting

      psxndc

      --

      The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.

    2. Re:pf is (d), All of the above. by twistedcubic · · Score: 4, Informative


      It was written because Darren Reed changed the license of ipf to something Theo (of OpenBSD) didn't agree with.

      Actually it wasn't just Theo, it was OpenBSD that didn't agree with the license, which, in its clarification, did not allow modified versions to be distributed. I use "clarification" because Reed claimed the license didn't change, but that he only allowed peple to use the software, not revise and distribute it.

    3. Re:pf is (d), All of the above. by Ricin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes and that was about BETA software which Mr Reed didnt want to be going into OpenBSD -HEAD. I still find his stance very legit. It wasn't finished, it wasn't all working, yet there it was to be imported into OpenBSD. Mr Reed had a lawyer look at his license and they figured it translated to "may not be distributed" and kept/imposed that. Once again, this was BETA software. The version considered stable had /has full BSD license.

  5. Porting software by cesarcardoso · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I remember once people on deadly.org praising the fact that GNOME 2.0 (or 2.2? I can't rememeber now) was easily ported to OpenBSD.

    It's great that GNOME is easily and quickly portable beyond Linux and Solaris (where people is pouring money on it) - GNOME hackers are on the way to make a truly industry-standard desktop environment. Go GNOME!

    --
    Cesar Cardoso can be found at cesar at zyakannazio dot eti dot br (or at least I believe so)
  6. It wasn't always that way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When GNOME was Miguel Icaza's baby the code was written in a non-standard and non portable way.

    Amazingly Miguel Icaza is considered a 'great coder', yet couldn't be bothered to write portable code.

    Once Miguel Icaza left the project, the GNOME code started to become portable and the project adopted a motto of 'it don't ship unless it runs on Solaris/FreeBSD and other UNIXes beyond GNU/Linux.'

    The real programmers took over and got the code portable.

  7. Rev: pf is available for (d), All of the above. by TitaniumFox · · Score: 2, Informative

    Er. I think you're being trolled. I hadn't intended to come across as correcting whether pf is part of OpenBSD or not.

    pf is a project of OpenBSD: True.
    pf is now available to the other BSDs: True.
    This is good for *BSD: True.

    Cheers!

    --
    -- I'd say your post was about 3 monkeys, 18 minutes.
  8. Re:FreeBSD? (Yep, still here) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hi. Allow me to introduce myself. I'm FreeBSD. A lot of you are saying I'm dead. I assure you that is not the case.

    Dying? Definition 6. from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dying reads:

    6. To become indifferent: had died to all worldly concerns.

    Apply this definition to your constant bickering over whether or not I'm dead and I'll agree. :-)

    Over the last twenty something years I've been through a lot. But through it all I've been reliable and dependable.

    Over the next few years I'm going to show you what the terms "scalability," "efficiency," and "security" really mean.

    So shut your pie holes and keep coding. Maybe you'll have a hope in hell of keeping up with me.

    Yours truly,
    FreeBSD

  9. Re:FreeBSD? by Baki · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No no, the main argument for FreeBSD is its ease of system administration. Just cvsup once in a while, do a make world and mergemaster to merge new /etc & other config files and you're done. This way you can stay current for many years without ever reinstalling, even move your installation from machine to machine.

    For me it is lazyness that keeps me stick with FreeBSD.