Especially, Linux, as well BSD eco-system/distributions are greatly saturated. Need to put all efford in one great distribution. Otherwise, competing with each other for nothing.. 35+ years of IS/IT experience taught me that.
@@samshort365 That's why no one uses it. If everyone who uses Windows had to download Explorer, configure audio, USB stick, configure video card, there would probably be more Mac users. Just because I know how to do it doesn't mean everyone knows how to do it (or will want to do it).
@@samshort365 This is why no one is lining up to use BSD systems. If every Windows user had to download explorer, configure audio, mount a pendrive, video card, there would probably be more Mac users out there. It's not because I know how to do this that everyone should know, or will want to do this.
@@marcosAmaranteC Respectfully, you are contradicting your earlier argument for KDE or Gnome. The average user doesn't have to install anything, GhostBSD already comes with a functional Mate' environment and configuring audio, mounting drives and installing video drivers is a function of the operating system rather than any particular user interface, and could be smoother. I would accept your argument for GhostBSD if it only shipped as a basic system like OpenBSD or a raw command line system. Sure, no user would want to have to build Windows on top of Dos. Could they have KDE and Gnome forks, certainly, and that would help! But would that really swing the average user? Probably not. It takes a certain masochist like us (e.g. compiling Chrome for 12 hours) to want to try and enjoy using BSD on the desktop. At best you would probably only attract the bored Linux user that wants to live on the edge, because very few other people are aware of such alternatives. Having said that I think that GhostBSD is a work in progress. It will improve and perhaps your wish will come true. It certainly can't hurt 🙂.
@@samshort365 Sorry, I actually referred to vanilla FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD in my second comment. But you are correct, there is no problem with Mate or XFCE, but it is a fact that KDE and Gnome are desktop environments. preferred by users. But it's just my opinion, I think it's really possible to make *BSD's more "commercial" for the desktop.
TrueOS. Not to be confused with Tru64 Unix.
❤
Especially, Linux, as well BSD eco-system/distributions are greatly saturated. Need to put all efford in one great distribution. Otherwise, competing with each other for nothing.. 35+ years of IS/IT experience taught me that.
I think that if GhostBSD invested in kde and gnome (44+) it would attract a lot of people to the OS.
I don't mind Mate' , but , in any case, its FreeBSD under the hood. I don't see why you cant install both KDE and Gnome on it yourself.
@@samshort365 That's why no one uses it. If everyone who uses Windows had to download Explorer, configure audio, USB stick, configure video card, there would probably be more Mac users. Just because I know how to do it doesn't mean everyone knows how to do it (or will want to do it).
@@samshort365 This is why no one is lining up to use BSD systems. If every Windows user had to download explorer, configure audio, mount a pendrive, video card, there would probably be more Mac users out there. It's not because I know how to do this that everyone should know, or will want to do this.
@@marcosAmaranteC Respectfully, you are contradicting your earlier argument for KDE or Gnome. The average user doesn't have to install anything, GhostBSD already comes with a functional Mate' environment and configuring audio, mounting drives and installing video drivers is a function of the operating system rather than any particular user interface, and could be smoother. I would accept your argument for GhostBSD if it only shipped as a basic system like OpenBSD or a raw command line system. Sure, no user would want to have to build Windows on top of Dos. Could they have KDE and Gnome forks, certainly, and that would help! But would that really swing the average user? Probably not. It takes a certain masochist like us (e.g. compiling Chrome for 12 hours) to want to try and enjoy using BSD on the desktop. At best you would probably only attract the bored Linux user that wants to live on the edge, because very few other people are aware of such alternatives. Having said that I think that GhostBSD is a work in progress. It will improve and perhaps your wish will come true. It certainly can't hurt 🙂.
@@samshort365 Sorry, I actually referred to vanilla FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD in my second comment. But you are correct, there is no problem with Mate or XFCE, but it is a fact that KDE and Gnome are desktop environments. preferred by users. But it's just my opinion, I think it's really possible to make *BSD's more "commercial" for the desktop.
Void😁😁😁😁😁
lumina desktop is active... wish people could help too...
It is? I looked and it doesn't look very active to be honest, but if it is, then that's great///
I remember trident way back in the day i used it also PC-BSD and TrueOS