Either the BSDs are going to end up relegated for a long time to server-only OSs (arguably they already have been), or they are going to somehow commit massive resources to catch up
Actually, with all the disdain for GNOME 3 and Unity (that I can't fully understand), I think the BSDs actually have a window of opportunity. Make or take a desktop environment that those clamoring for GNOME 2 or KDE 3 love, integrate it very well with your base system, and make a very predictable ABI, ABI, and development schedule. Now that almost everyone seems to be involved in crazy desktop experiments, such an oasis of quiet would probably attract lots of UNIX hackers.
If the support for BSD dwindles down below a certain point,
It doesn't exactly help that there are four major BSDs (if we don't count Mac OS X).
> Actually, with all the disdain for GNOME 3 and Unity (that I can't fully understand), I think the BSDs actually have a window of opportunity.
I agree, but none of the BSD projects has the developer resources to take advantage of that opportunity right now. It would be a massive undertaking, and, unlike many other aspects of OS development, would require very serious long-term commitments. That's what makes this new screw-you attitude in Linux upstream so frustrating for the BSDs; it's taking groups of developers that are already stretched really thin, and it's placing even greater demands on them, and for pretty silly reasons in some cases. You really can't blame the BSD developers for feeling sabotaged.
So I think it's more likely that another desktop environment project that still has sane developers, like xfce, will end up getting some more activity while being easier to install on the BSDs (and consequently better supported there).
> It doesn't exactly help that there are four major BSDs
Yeah, the fallout between NetBSD and Theo was unfortunate. Each of the BSDs has a specific focus now that doesn't really fit with the others; I'd bet on them all evaporating rather than merging.
> Make or take a desktop environment that those clamoring for GNOME 2 or KDE 3 love, integrate it very well with your base system, and make a very predictable ABI, ABI, and development schedule
The reason that KDE 4 and GNOME 3 are tragedies is that the KDE 3 ecosystem is way too big to replace. Hundreds of developers worked for years to build KDE 2.x and 3.x.
We have the source code for KDE 3.5, it's just not practical to maintain it with the resources and manpower available outside the project.
If it's not practical to merely maintain existing code, I'm not sure I have words for how hard it would be to create a viable replacement. Mind-boggling. Stupendous. Impossible.
>It doesn't exactly help that there are four major BSDs
Yes it does. This weird misconception that all the developers of different BSD lineage OSes would all be working together one a single system otherwise is ridiculous. There are 4 because the people working on them wanted 4. If netbsd disappeared, those developers wouldn't just switch to an OS they don't care for, and aren't interested in. Having 4 OSes means there are more developers in total, and given the licences, code is shared between the 4 systems. It is entirely a gain for all 4 of them to have the other 3 exist.
Except that Linux pretty much shows that a focused effort has far better chances to succeed. Even after the AT&T/Novell lawsuit, FreeBSD was technically mostly ahead of Linux, it also had a license that was more attractive to business. Still, Linux got ahead and became more popular. Even among companies.
I have no idea what you are trying to say. You don't appear to have read what I said at all. There is no magic "just be focusing" power. You can't just tell people to stop doing what you want, and start doing what you don't want because some random guy on the internet thinks it will make some random software you don't care about more popular. The netbsd devs don't care about making freebsd more popular, deleting 3 of the BSD lineage operating systems won't make a focused effort on the remaining one, the remaining one would still be right where it is now, and the devs of the other systems would simply not be involved. This would be a loss, not a gain, as the remaining system would no longer have 3 other OSes to pull code and ideas from.
You are doing the equivalent of saying gnome developers should just delete gnome and start working on KDE instead. The gnome developers aren't interested in KDE. If they were, they would be KDE developers, not gnome developers. This is the same with the BSD lineage operating systems. NetBSD developers aren't going to become FreeBSD developers just because you think it would make them do better in a popularity contest they didn't enter. If they wanted to develop FreeBSD, they would be doing so.
Actually, with all the disdain for GNOME 3 and Unity (that I can't fully understand), I think the BSDs actually have a window of opportunity. Make or take a desktop environment that those clamoring for GNOME 2 or KDE 3 love, integrate it very well with your base system, and make a very predictable ABI, ABI, and development schedule. Now that almost everyone seems to be involved in crazy desktop experiments, such an oasis of quiet would probably attract lots of UNIX hackers.
If the support for BSD dwindles down below a certain point,
It doesn't exactly help that there are four major BSDs (if we don't count Mac OS X).