Linked by Andrew Hudson on Mon 20th Jun 2011 17:19 UTC
BeOS & Derivatives Haiku Alpha 3 has been in development for more than 14 months. In that time more than 800 bugs have been identified and fixed, major sections have been updated, applications have been added and updated, and great progress has been made in supporting additional hardware. Here is a summary of updates, more details can be found here. Also inside, interviews with some core Haiku developers.
Thread beginning with comment 477831
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Looking Forward to Haiku
by tuaris on Mon 20th Jun 2011 11:19 UTC
tuaris
Member since:
2007-08-05

Really looking forward to seeing Haiku ready for production. I have followed this project since the very first minute of it's existence.

I spent a few hours the other day browsing the source code and I was really impressed with it's design. It's kernel is of a hybrid design that is up to par with (if not better than) modern OS's like Windows NT and OS X. Fully integrated GUI, and pretty much designed from the ground up to kick ass. The same cannot be said of GNU Linux, which is nothing more than a hack job built on top of an outdated monolithic kernel design.

I know it's still several years away, but when the multi-user and server versions of Haiku are ready, I'll switch all my Linux/BSD stuff to it in a heartbeat.

Edited 2011-06-20 11:20 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: Looking Forward to Haiku
by vodoomoth on Mon 20th Jun 2011 12:06 in reply to "Looking Forward to Haiku"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

You might be right but you've been downvoted (not by me). I'd hazard that the reason is the little thing you wrote about untouchable-pure-gold Linux being a hack.

The problem I see with Haiku is that it's only "alpha 3"... and after that maybe a beta phase, before maybe a train of RCs. And that's before the actual release of a first version.

I'm concerned about how relevant Haiku will still be by that time and how many people would have any incentive or reason to actually use it as their main OS.

But this alpha 3 is still good news, maybe that it'll finally install on one of my systems.

OT: can a native speaker tell me what this means, the sentence construct feels weird: "It should be noted that over 800 bugs closed as fixed since R1 Alpha 2." Thanks.

Edited 2011-06-20 12:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

v RE[2]: Looking Forward to Haiku
by tuaris on Mon 20th Jun 2011 12:15 in reply to "RE: Looking Forward to Haiku"
RE[2]: Looking Forward to Haiku
by atriq on Mon 20th Jun 2011 17:42 in reply to "RE: Looking Forward to Haiku"
atriq Member since:
2007-10-18

OT: can a native speaker tell me what this means, the sentence construct feels weird: "It should be noted that over 800 bugs closed as fixed since R1 Alpha 2." Thanks.
All it means is that approximately 800 call tickets were acknowleged as actual bugs and were corrected. This implies that the figure stripped out all of the call tickets that had resolutions like "won't fix", "cannot reproduce", or "duplicate".

Edited 2011-06-20 17:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Looking Forward to Haiku
by Fergy on Mon 20th Jun 2011 19:02 in reply to "RE: Looking Forward to Haiku"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

OT: can a native speaker tell me what this means, the sentence construct feels weird: "It should be noted that over 800 bugs closed as fixed since R1 Alpha 2." Thanks.

When a bug is closed in a bugtracker it doesn't always mean it is fixed. 800 bugs are closed _and_ fixed.

Reply Parent Score: 2

cmchittom Member since:
2011-03-18

OT: can a native speaker tell me what this means, the sentence construct feels weird: "It should be noted that over 800 bugs closed as fixed since R1 Alpha 2." Thanks.


Bugs can be closed for several reasons, and bug-tracking systems usually give you a way to state the reason a bug was closed. "Fixed" might be one. "Won't fix," "Unreproduceable," and "It's a feature, not a bug" might be others.

Apparently, at least 801 bugs were closed by being marked "Fixed." Obviously it would have been much clearer if they had just said "over 800 bugs were fixed," and left it at that This not so much a native-speaker issue, I think, as a Programmers-aren't-always-the-best-communicators issue.

Reply Parent Score: 1

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

[q I'd hazard that the reason is the little thing you wrote about untouchable-pure-gold Linux being a hack. [/q]

That's a risky bet, there was so much silliness in the previous post to focus on just one line as being the culprit.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Looking Forward to Haiku
by cb88 on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 03:32 in reply to "RE: Looking Forward to Haiku"
cb88 Member since:
2009-04-23

It means that 800 bugs have literally been fixed not just closed as duplicates or as invalid and such.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Looking Forward to Haiku
by Laurence on Mon 20th Jun 2011 12:44 in reply to "Looking Forward to Haiku"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Really looking forward to seeing Haiku ready for production. I have followed this project since the very first minute of it's existence.

I spent a few hours the other day browsing the source code and I was really impressed with it's design. It's kernel is of a hybrid design that is up to par with (if not better than) modern OS's like Windows NT and OS X. Fully integrated GUI, and pretty much designed from the ground up to kick ass. The same cannot be said of GNU Linux, which is nothing more than a hack job built on top of an outdated monolithic kernel design.

I know it's still several years away, but when the multi-user and server versions of Haiku are ready, I'll switch all my Linux/BSD stuff to it in a heartbeat.

By that definition, all modern kernels are hack jobs:
* NT is constantly undergoing source chopping of outdated / redundant features (aka the MinWin project) * XNU (OS X's kernel) runs heavily hacked versions of Mach and BSD.
* SVR4 (of which Solaris has evolved from) was built from a need to unify the different UNIXs - so has code hacked from all over the shop.

It's impossible to maintain a working kernel without having to hack bits from time to time - and this is more so the case in open source where projects will share schedulers (et al) from one and another.

In fact, I'd be more worried if a modern kernel hadn't seen it's fair share of hacking.

Reply Parent Score: 12

RE[2]: Looking Forward to Haiku
by Not2Sure on Mon 20th Jun 2011 20:43 in reply to "RE: Looking Forward to Haiku"
Not2Sure Member since:
2009-12-07

Lol, what seriously is a "modern" kernel. What's next a postmodern kernel?

Software engineers really have no idea how haphazard their work really is.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

In my book, Hacks are good. Grand Designs are bad. Real Artists Ship. IMHO, there is a good reason why Linux and not Hurd or Minux took off like a rocket.

Haiku gets a break as it was an existing design with a real working example to compare it with.

Reply Parent Score: 6

demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

In my book, Hacks are good. Grand Designs are bad. Real Artists Ship. IMHO, there is a good reason why Linux and not Hurd or Minux took off like a rocket.

Haiku gets a break as it was an existing design with a real working example to compare it with.


You're spot on about everything except Minix. Minix didn't take off because Dr. Tanenbaum wouldn't let it take off. The first versions of Minix were purely for teaching purposes. Linux was created mainly because Linux had improvements to submit, but they were improvements that were out of scope with Minix's purpose. So, he created his own kernel based on what he considered good & bad in Minix (monolithic vs. ukernel, etc.). So, please don't throw Minix into that category.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Looking Forward to Haiku
by JAlexoid on Mon 20th Jun 2011 22:51 in reply to "Looking Forward to Haiku"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

outdated monolithic kernel design

It was labelled as "outdated" 20 years ago by Tanenbaum and for some reason is dominating all other Unixes.
If you wish to revisit the discussion, I think the archive is still there from 1991.

PS: If you don't like monolithic so much, why don't you switch to Darwin?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Looking Forward to Haiku
by Phucked on Tue 21st Jun 2011 10:57 in reply to "RE: Looking Forward to Haiku"
Phucked Member since:
2008-09-24


PS: If you don't like monolithic so much, why don't you switch to Darwin?


The Darwin/Mac os X kernel is not a Microkernel

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/0506.mk3.html

The Mach kernel didn't fail; it was the Mach microkernel project that failed. Neither NeXT nor Apple ever used Mach as a microkernel.

Recall that at the time of NeXT's decision to use Mach in NeXTSTEP, Mach wasn't being developed as a microkernel with an external, operating system in userland. Rather, Mach 2.5 simply injected some new ideas on how a microkernel might work into an existing, fat kernel space.

Mach 2.5 was a fat kernel, not the problematic microkernel with horrific performance problems that Mach 3.0 turned out to be.

All the ideological criticisms lobbed back and forth between Linux creator (and fat kernel advocate) Linus Torvalds and Andrew Tanenbaum (the creator of the Minix microkernel) have nearly nothing at all to do with Mach as it is used in Mac OS X.

More Nails in the Coffin
Once again, just for good measure: Mac OS X is not based on a microkernel architecture, and has never used Mach as a microkernel. Apple's XNU kernel is larger than many monolithic kernels, and does not suffer from the intractable performance failure the world associates with Mach microkernel research.

Apple has incorporated progress the Mach project made in development of Mach 3.0, but nothing changed: Mac OS X still does not have a microkernel architecture. Its XNU kernel is not implemented as a microkernel. Apple does not use Mach as a microkernel.


XNU incorporates many technologies from Mach which makes it different than traditional fat kernels such as BSD or Linux. The microkernel myth confuses the facts by associating [anything related to Mach] with [the failure of the Mach microkernel project], which sought to remove BSD from Mach. Since Mac OS X's version of Mach is full of BSD, this false association is rooted in either ignorance or FUD (or both), depending on who is reweaving the myth.

So there you have it: the Mac OS X Microkernel Myth falls apart on the simple discovery that Mac OS X has no microkernel

Reply Parent Score: 1