=?utf-8?q?Re:_signup_for_Desktop_tasks?_and_"ports"?_and_plugin_detection?=

["David Brownlee" <abs%absd.org@localhost>]

From: Anne Bennett <anne%porcupine.montreal.qc.ca@localhost>

> On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Andrew Doran wrote:
> 
> > initially I think we should focus on modern x86 hardware.
> >
> > For a long time many of us have felt constrained because we have to 
support
> > every piece of junk floating around out there. I don't think we should 
let
> > this hold us back.
> 
> That concerns me because the whole philosophy behind the project is
> "of course it runs NetBSD".  There's not much point using NetBSD as a
> basis for a desktop project and then turning around and violating its
> most basic tenet.

By that reasoning you might argue we should not have the existing desktop 
packages as they would not run on a vax? likewise the i386 linux compat 
code from the kernel and x86 packages from pkgsrc, oh and xen too.

Andrew and I have different opinions on the value of supporting older 
hardware :), but we would both agree that netbsd should take full advantage 
of and be highly performant on modern hardware, and the fact that certain 
software or features will not work on older machines (x86 or otherwise) 
should not prevent it from being enabled in a netbsd-desktop package 
targetted at fast x86 boxes.

The package shoud be buildable and installable on other ports, though it 
will obviously omit certain subpackages such as the linux compat flash 
player. It may not make sense to run the package on some machines, but how 
does that differ from the gnome package today?

I would like to see a lighter desktop option, and I (and expect others) 
will be working out the best way to provide that.

I would say most of the proposed changes are going to benefit other ports - 
at least based on the current list on the wiki pages :)