Gershwin on GhostBSD: A Retro Future Built on GNUstep


Every now and then, something shows up in the open-source world that feels less like a new project and more like a glimpse into an alternate timeline.

Gershwin, introduced in GhostBSD 25.02-R14.3p2, is exactly that.

It doesn’t try to look like Windows. It doesn’t try to look like GNOME. It doesn’t even try to look like modern macOS.

Instead, it looks like OS X, or even NeXTSTEP, a design language that disappeared years ago, and that’s precisely what makes it interesting.

GhostBSD Takes a Different Turn

For those unfamiliar, GhostBSD is a FreeBSD-based operating system focused on simplicity and delivering a ready-to-use desktop experience. Traditionally, it has leaned on MATE and XFCE, both stable desktop environments that perform well across a wide range of hardware, from older, low-powered systems to more modern machines. Recent developments from those projects, where both projects are looking to implement a Wayland backend, has prompted potential changes for this FreeBSD-based system, as Wayland is not ready on FreeBSD.

Here comes Gershwin: a retro, Mac OS X-inspired desktop environment built on GNUstep and other open-source technologies.

I am not entirely sure whether the motivation for the introduction of this retro style desktop, as opposed to implementing something newer that relies on either X11 or Xlibre1, but it clearly stands apart from MATE, XFCE, Windows, and modern macOS. I could imagine that the GhostBSD team does not have the vast resources of a System76 to develop their own environment entirely from scratch.

It’s still unclear to me whether it’s meant to replace MATE or XFCE, or to simply exist alongside them, but either way, it signals a shift in direction. This shift becomes even more interesting when viewed alongside the broader changes happening in the Linux and BSD desktop space, particularly the ongoing move from X11 to Wayland2.

The movement from X11 to Wayland


Depending on how you talk to, the transition from X11 to Wayland has either been smooth with some hiccups, or awful. Some of the sketpics about the migration to Wayland have brought up reasonable concerns regarding technologies that have yet to be added to Wayland, such as accessibility tools which are present in X11. The unfortunate part of this process is that the behaviour of organizations involved with X11 are trying to freeze the project to force people over to Wayland.

Personally, I think that the transition has been anything but smooth:

  • X11 is aging, but stable and well-understood
  • Wayland brings modern features and improvements
  • Accessibility and workflow gaps still exist
  • Performance varies depending on hardware

From my own experience, that divide is very real.

On newer hardware, in my case, an AMD 5600G with 64GB of RAM, Wayland works nearly perfect. No major complaints.

But on older or lower-powered systems? Completely different story.

On a 2011 iMac, an Intel N200 mini PC with 8GB of RAM, and even a Raspberry Pi 5 (with 8 GB of RAM), Wayland felt noticeably sluggish. Switching to X11 made an immediate and significant difference.

Gerswhin doesn’t feel like a typical desktop environment, it feels like a revival of a different path desktop computing could have taken.

The Look: Straight Out of the Aqua Era

  • Dock at the bottom.
  • Global menu at the top.
  • Clean, structured desktop.

If you ever used OS X Tiger or Leopard, your brain recognizes it instantly.

But there is an important distinction.

This feels like OS X, not the current macOS, that distinction matters.

OS X ended in 2016 when Apple renamed the platform to macOS and shifted toward flatter visuals, translucency, blur, and a more iOS influenced design language. Gershwin stays firmly rooted in the Aqua era with a structured and functional experience.

Retro. Yes. Outdated. Possibly. Intentional. Almost certainly.

Built on GNUstep: The Ghost of NeXT

At the heart of Gershwin is GNUstep, an open-source implementation of the NeXTSTEP/OpenStep frameworks, the same lineage that eventually evolved into macOS.

In practical terms, GNUstep provides:

  • Foundation libraries and core system libraries
  • An AppKit style GUI toolkit similar to Cocoa
  • Objective C runtime
  • Development tools

If you have ever written Cocoa applications, GNUstep feels strangely familiar, like using macOS from a parallel timeline where Apple never fully transitioned away from the original OS X design philosophy.

There is also an interesting historical angle. Older OpenStep or early Cocoa applications could theoretically be adapted to run on GNUstep. Not modern macOS apps, that ecosystem has diverged too far, but from a historical perspective the compatibility story remains fascinating.

GNUstep is not just software. It is preservation of the original NeXT DNA.

My GNUstep Test Drive

I have not yet run Gershwin directly on GhostBSD, but I tested GNUstep through Debian live environment. My honest take is that there are good and bad parts to it, which is to be expected given this project is fairly new. I would like to add that given I tried this under Debian, I am not sure if there are any differences when using it under GhostBSD.

If anything this reminds of the initial alpha release of the Cosmic DE from System76 where it was useable, but rough around the edges.

The Good

  • Dock icons bounce when launching applications, classic OS X behavior that still feels satisfying
  • CPU and RAM usage visible near the clock, simple and practical
  • Clean desktop model where applications live in the dock rather than scattered across the desktop
  • The desktop functions normally

The Rough Edges

  • Could not switch from the default GNUstep theme to Eau, clearly inspired by Aqua as Eau is French for waterf
  • Menus required click and hold rather than simple click to open. This may be due to testing inside VirtualBox, though older interaction models such as classic Mac OS behaved similarly
  • The Command symbol appears, but shortcuts do not fully follow expected Command key behavior
  • No visible shutdown option, required using Terminal and the poweroff command
  • Unclear method for launching applications beyond those listed under the main menu
  • Application borders and menu clarity need improvement
  • The file manager is functional but very basic

On the positive side, TextEdit and Terminal appear implemented and usable. Window controls behave correctly, although restoring minimized applications is not obvious. Firefox launched successfully, though it used its own window controls rather than the system style.

The overall impression is that Gershwin does not feel broken, only early and unfinished. This aligns with the fact that Gershwin first appeared publicly in August 2025.

The Name: A Deep Apple Reference

The name Gershwin is subtle, meaningful name for this project.

In the late 1990s, Apple was developing Copland as the successor to (Mac OS) System 7. The next planned generation after Copland carried the codename Gershwin.

  • Copland failed.
  • Gershwin never shipped.

Apple then acquired NeXT, bringing Steve Jobs back and laying the technological foundation that eventually became macOS.

Decades later, a BSD desktop built on that same NeXT lineage revives the name. It feels like a true full circle moment, especially considering how much BSD heritage still lives inside macOS.

Under the Hood

Currently, Gershwin relies partly on XFCE4, though the GhostBSD team has hinted at a future replacement.

According to the development team, future improvements include:

  • More native applications
  • Better software management tools
  • Dock enhancements
  • Deeper system integration
  • Prebuilt ISOs are expected at some point in the future, but for now it’s available through unstable repositories for early testing.

Does It Feel Modern

This is where things become subjective.

Gershwin looks clean, but it also feels retro and nostalgic. Its behavior closely resembles classic OS X.

It does not feel like a 2026 desktop, and maybe that’s not the goal.

Not everything needs blur effects, translucency, and mobile inspired design. There’s something refreshing about clarity and structure, about a design that knows exactly what it wants to be.

It feels similar in spirit to the Trinity Desktop3 which is an attempt to preserve KDE 3, not chasing modern trends, but preserving a design philosophy.

Gershwin seems to be taking a similar approach, but from a different lineage and with a different goal. While Trinity focuses on preserving the KDE 3 experience by continuing to rely on its Qt 3-based foundation, Gershwin aims to recreate a classic desktop style while still leveraging newer technologies.

Final Thoughts

I have not yet spent enough time with Gershwin to fully judge it. However, from what I have seen, it is a promising and historically fascinating desktop environment. Retro, nostalgic, and distinct.

Most importantly, it is different.

In a world where desktop environments increasingly converge toward similar design language, Gershwin chooses to revive a path that disappeared decades ago.

Now the real question remains.

Is Gershwin a modern revival of OS X, or a beautifully preserved time capsule? Time will answer that soon enough.

Image Credits and References:

Here are those links formatted as Markdown:

  1. XLibre is a fork of the X11 project, which developers had moved to maintenance mode - meaning no updates. ↩︎

  2. Although I’m not deeply familiar with all the technical details, many Linux distributions and desktop environments are actively moving toward Wayland as a replacement for the aging X11 system, in the case of the latest version of GNOME, X11 has been removed entirely. Wayland is generally promoted as a more modern protocol with better security and support for newer technologies such as HDR, improved frame timing, and smoother compositing.

    That said, there are still gaps. Common concerns include incomplete accessibility support (e.g., screen readers and input tools), inconsistent remote desktop behavior, and varying hardware performance. Some critics also argue that the push toward Wayland-first or Wayland-only environments is often associated with organizations like Red Hat which is owned by IBM. This push to remove X11 is happening before feature parity with X11 is fully achieved.

    From my own experience, Wayland works well on modern hardware, but performance has been noticeably worse on older or lower-powered devices such as a 2011 iMac (iMac12,2), an Intel N200 mini PC, and a Raspberry Pi 5 (8GB RAM). Switching to X11 on those systems resulted in a clear improvement in responsiveness.

    Remote desktop is another area where I’ve consistently run into issues under Wayland. Tools using RDP or similar protocols often either fail to connect properly or require starting a new session rather than attaching to the active one. In contrast, using X11 with XRDP and XFCE allowed me to reliably access an existing session.

    It’s also worth noting that while X11 has largely been in maintenance mode with not many substantial updates, it remains widely used and stable. Projects like XLibre have emerged in an effort to continue its development, though adoption is still early. ↩︎

  3. The Trinity Desktop Environment (TDE) began as a fork of KDE 3, emerging in the years following the controversial release of KDE 4. Alongside preserving the KDE 3 desktop experience, the project also forked the Qt 3 toolkit into what is known as TQt.

    Today, TDE continues to rely on TQt, which actively maintained and extends Qt 3, which allows it to retain compatibility with the original KDE 3 codebase while continuing to receive updates and fixes. The one downside to TQt is that it is not compatible with any of the newer Qt versions, which is likely intentional to preserve stability and legacy continuity. ↩︎