Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 29th Mar 2013 22:39 UTC
BeOS & Derivatives "Last Friday Oliver and I met up to discuss the state of things and how we intend to proceed. The run-time support for package management in Haiku (in the package management branch, of course) is in pretty good shape already. With the system itself and all the third-party software living in packages the system boots and is fully functional."
Thread beginning with comment 557219
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Ironic
by lubod on Sun 31st Mar 2013 18:09 UTC
lubod
Member since:
2009-02-02

I think Zima is correct that even if RISCOS had something first, NeXTStep was more influential in making it popular, both by itself, and because it is the basis for Mac OS X.

Ironic that things that keep Haiku from Release 1 are 'cruft' left over from its BeOS legacy. As I recall, BeOS' speed and performance came largely from dropping support for applications from legacy OSes (Mac and Windows) and legacy CPUs (you had to have a PowerPC Mac or Pentium or 486? nothing older would do). Thus backward compatibility with BeOS (to whatever degree it exists) slows Haiku development in a way that the original BeOS programmers would likely frown upon.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ironic
by anevilyak on Sun 31st Mar 2013 20:53 in reply to "Ironic"
anevilyak Member since:
2005-09-14


Ironic that things that keep Haiku from Release 1 are 'cruft' left over from its BeOS legacy.


That's not correct, the remaining missing pieces have pretty much nothing to do with R5. The biggest thing keeping us from R1 is plain and simply time and manpower, there aren't all that many of us working on it, and many of those who remain have started families in the intervening years, which drastically cuts down on available free time.

This incessantly repeated meme that R5 compatibility is what slows us down really needs to stop because it's completely wrong. The amount of effort required to maintain that is, and has been for years, negligible.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Ironic
by v_bobok on Mon 1st Apr 2013 09:50 in reply to "Ironic"
v_bobok Member since:
2008-08-01

That whole binary compatibility makes no sense 13 years later. Seriously, the remaining software with available sources can be recompiled in no time and most of the closed/proprietary old time BeOS apps aren't working properly in Haiku a4 anyway.

I'd suggest to break the legacy binary compatibility and focus on full-on Qt port with multimedia and all that jazz. Let Haiku R1 be GCC4 only, at least there's a chance of getting some new software without scaring the developers away with older build tools and things like that.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Ironic
by Valhalla on Mon 1st Apr 2013 11:36 in reply to "Ironic"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


Ironic that things that keep Haiku from Release 1 are 'cruft' left over from its BeOS legacy.

You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote (if you were basing your comment on mine), I stated that 'package management' is a R1 showstopper.

Package management has nothing to do with Beos R5 'cruft', however by reaching R1 (which is prevented by the lack of functional package management), Haiku can start moving towards R2 and with it start leaving Beos R5 and all it's baggage behind.

And with baggage I mean things like GCC 2.95 binary compability and really bad core stuff like B_MAX_CPU_COUNT/system_info.

Reply Parent Score: 2