10 ms·

what's in haiku OS that's not in Linux? Is it like a bundled linux OS?

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
Haiku is a recreation of BeOS built on the NewOS kernel (not Linux). BeOS (and therefore Haiku) had some neat features like a database built into the FS, was designed to take advantage of multiprocessor systems, and put a lot of effort into providing great multimedia capabilities. From my perspective, the project seemed to have been taken over by Linux Desktop people, introduced a package manager, and I completely lost interest in it. In that respect, it's basically a much less functional Linux distro.
- waddlesplash 8y ago
  Yes, we've been taken over by "Linux Desktop" people so much, a majority of the team is still opposed to using the Linux kernel, dislikes ported software, and actively works to not use GPL code when we can! Joking aside, I know the package manager was somehow a sticking point for people when it was merged in a pretty unpolished state, but at this point I'm not sure what the complaints are. Even most of the regular errors or problem states people associate with package managers don't occur all that often on Haiku. And I also note the people who did the most work on the LibreOffice port say they would not even have attempted it without the package manager, so there's that.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    > Joking aside, I know the package manager was somehow a sticking point for people when it was merged in a pretty unpolished state, but at this point I'm not sure what the complaints are. Package management is an awful paradigm for application management. I'm not familiar with Haiku's implementation, but the only reason anyone needs a package manager is if they intend on having a complex web of dependencies and spreading an application's files all over the hierarchy. In other words, they're a UNIX system. Implementations are almost always reliant on a centrally managed appstore-like repository that developers have to deal with to distribute software in the "official" way, often don't allow multiple concurrent instance of the same application to be install (different versions, for instance), are completely inflexible in regards to where applications are installed (so portability is right out), etc. Many of the problems I have with package managers were expressed by parts of the Haiku community when it introduced one. It appears that the developers disregarded these concerns because they like package management in Linux. Fine, they're the one's working on it, they can do what they want, but I don't have to like or praise that decision. > And I also note the people who did the most work on the LibreOffice port say they would not even have attempted it without the package manager, so there's that. Says a lot about the system then doesn't it? Windows has a portable LibreOffice, even Linux has an AppImage.
    - waddlesplash 8y ago
      > but the only reason anyone needs a package manager is if they intend on having a complex web of dependencies and spreading an application's files all over the hierarchy. Well, guess what? LibreOffice has a complex web of dependencies, and getting all those couple dozen dependencies patched, built, and then properly installed so the build system & compiler can find and use them is not trivial. If you've got a Haiku install, try installing LibreOffice; you'll see it brings about 20-30 packages with it! > In other words, they're a UNIX system. Haiku is a POSIX system, yes. Why is that an issue? > Implementations are almost always reliant on a centrally managed appstore-like repository that developers have to deal with to distribute software in the "official" way Well, Haiku packages can be installed without a repository. If all your package depends on are is base system itself, you can still ship it to users without a repository. Or you can run your own repository; it's quite easy to do, and multiple third-parties already are. Or you can submit recipes to HaikuPorts, which feeds the base "ports" repository, which multiple third-parties have also already done, in addition to our own proactive porting effort. > often don't allow multiple concurrent instance of the same application to be install (different versions, for instance) On Haiku, you can install packages in either `system` or in your local `home` directory, so you could have one version of the package in each of those. Or you could extract the package and run the app outside the package (if the app supports it; not all do.) > are completely inflexible in regards to where applications are installed (so portability is right out), etc. Indeed this is a common complaint, but as I noted above on Haiku you can install packages in `home`. Not sure what that has to do with portability, though? > It appears that the developers disregarded these concerns because they like package management in Linux We don't particularly like a number of aspects of package management in Linux, which is why we went with a very different solution than Linux did: packages are essentially filesystem images which are "mounted" into a pseudo-unionfs. That means installation/uninstallation time is virtually nothing, it's trivial to install packages in `home` as well as `system`, you can boot into old states, etc. > Says a lot about the system then doesn't it? Windows has a portable LibreOffice, even Linux has an AppImage. Windows has LibreOffice because everyone uses Windows, and so people are willing to put the time in to deal with having to patch and compile all LibreOffice's dependencies specially for Windows because there is no real "ports" tree for Windows. AppImages are just 'packages' with all the dependencies in the package. You could make those for Haiku, too, if you wanted. The system package manager isn't stopping you. You could also install software the "old way" of unzipping archives and then copying them somewhere, we also aren't stopping that. This is a new paradigm that hopefully will replace the old ones, but it doesn't necessarily, not if people continue to use the old ways. > Many of the problems I have with package managers were expressed by parts of the Haiku community when it introduced one. And a good number of those users have come around on that as we've ironed out issues or made changes to accommodate their concerns.
- rprospero 8y ago
  I interpreted your post as implying that the introduction of a package manager as the turning point where you lost interest. Did I get that wrong or are there arguments against package managers that I've missed out on? I understand the dislike or particular implementations, but I had thought that the general idea of automated package management was generally considered a net positive.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    Some of it is that all the implementations suck, but I think that's just a symptom of the root problem: package managers are the opposite of simple. They take control away from users and developers and put them into the hands of whoever is managing repositories. They don't let you decide where applications get stored, often won't let you have multiple versions, add an unnecessary layer between the developer and the user, and generally put you up the creek without a paddle if something goes wrong. There are a lot of reasons to not like package managers if you look around.
    - waddlesplash 8y ago
      > generally put you up the creek without a paddle if something goes wrong I would very much like to hear some anecdotes to back this one up, instead of a general accusation.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
        You've never had your apt database get corrupted? It's an experience you remember, because it means you can never install or uninstall anything ever again. Maybe they've improved on that somehow since it has last happened to me.
        waddlesplash 8y ago
        Nope, I never have. Haiku's package manager makes that problem impossible, though, because there is no "installed files" database; whatever packages are in the "activated-packages" file get mounted on startup. If that file doesn't exist, it mounts everything in `/system/packages`. And if that's in an inconsistent state, you can boot into a previous state from the bootloader menu. And if that still doesn't work, you can copy a working `packages` directory from another Haiku install.
- return_0e 8y ago
  Well by not introducing some sort of package manager would make Haiku even less functional. How would you manage all of the dependencies that LibreOffice requires to even run? (Especially updating Qt and WebKit), let alone update the OS itself which BeOS didn't have any of this. I'm pretty sure that nearly every modern OS out there has some sort of package manager. So I would say that by introducing this package manager has actually helped the project gain many usable applications which Haiku previously didn't have for some time.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    > How would you manage all of the dependencies that LibreOffice requires to even run The same way the portable Windows version does, or the Linux AppImage does. It isn't rocket science.
- hasahmed 8y ago
  This is the first time in my life that I've heard negative words about package managers in general. What's the downside? You can always just download and compile from source yourself if your so against it right
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
    > What's the downside? It didn't come from the Apple gods. The same ones who made two attempts to rewrite an OS with preemption and protected memory support before punting and buying one instead. Clearly they know best about how to structure an OS.
    - chipotle_coyote 8y ago
      In a post about the non-Apple-related open source clone of the non-Apple-related BeOS, someone starts a thread about how much they don't like the style of package managers that come from Linux, which I am fairly sure is, again, not related to Apple, this is relevant how?
waddlesplash 8y ago
https://www.haiku-os.org/about/faq/#is-haiku-based-on-linux https://www.haiku-os.org/about/faq/#is-haiku-based-on-linux

Haiku is a recreation of BeOS built on the NewOS kernel (not Linux). BeOS (and therefore Haiku) had some neat features like a database built into the FS, was designed to take advantage of multiprocessor systems, and put a lot of effort into providing great multimedia capabilities. From my perspective, the project seemed to have been taken over by Linux Desktop people, introduced a package manager, and I completely lost interest in it. In that respect, it's basically a much less functional Linux distro.

waddlesplash 8y ago
Yes, we've been taken over by "Linux Desktop" people so much, a majority of the team is still opposed to using the Linux kernel, dislikes ported software, and actively works to not use GPL code when we can! Joking aside, I know the package manager was somehow a sticking point for people when it was merged in a pretty unpolished state, but at this point I'm not sure what the complaints are. Even most of the regular errors or problem states people associate with package managers don't occur all that often on Haiku. And I also note the people who did the most work on the LibreOffice port say they would not even have attempted it without the package manager, so there's that.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  > Joking aside, I know the package manager was somehow a sticking point for people when it was merged in a pretty unpolished state, but at this point I'm not sure what the complaints are. Package management is an awful paradigm for application management. I'm not familiar with Haiku's implementation, but the only reason anyone needs a package manager is if they intend on having a complex web of dependencies and spreading an application's files all over the hierarchy. In other words, they're a UNIX system. Implementations are almost always reliant on a centrally managed appstore-like repository that developers have to deal with to distribute software in the "official" way, often don't allow multiple concurrent instance of the same application to be install (different versions, for instance), are completely inflexible in regards to where applications are installed (so portability is right out), etc. Many of the problems I have with package managers were expressed by parts of the Haiku community when it introduced one. It appears that the developers disregarded these concerns because they like package management in Linux. Fine, they're the one's working on it, they can do what they want, but I don't have to like or praise that decision. > And I also note the people who did the most work on the LibreOffice port say they would not even have attempted it without the package manager, so there's that. Says a lot about the system then doesn't it? Windows has a portable LibreOffice, even Linux has an AppImage.
  - waddlesplash 8y ago
    > but the only reason anyone needs a package manager is if they intend on having a complex web of dependencies and spreading an application's files all over the hierarchy. Well, guess what? LibreOffice has a complex web of dependencies, and getting all those couple dozen dependencies patched, built, and then properly installed so the build system & compiler can find and use them is not trivial. If you've got a Haiku install, try installing LibreOffice; you'll see it brings about 20-30 packages with it! > In other words, they're a UNIX system. Haiku is a POSIX system, yes. Why is that an issue? > Implementations are almost always reliant on a centrally managed appstore-like repository that developers have to deal with to distribute software in the "official" way Well, Haiku packages can be installed without a repository. If all your package depends on are is base system itself, you can still ship it to users without a repository. Or you can run your own repository; it's quite easy to do, and multiple third-parties already are. Or you can submit recipes to HaikuPorts, which feeds the base "ports" repository, which multiple third-parties have also already done, in addition to our own proactive porting effort. > often don't allow multiple concurrent instance of the same application to be install (different versions, for instance) On Haiku, you can install packages in either `system` or in your local `home` directory, so you could have one version of the package in each of those. Or you could extract the package and run the app outside the package (if the app supports it; not all do.) > are completely inflexible in regards to where applications are installed (so portability is right out), etc. Indeed this is a common complaint, but as I noted above on Haiku you can install packages in `home`. Not sure what that has to do with portability, though? > It appears that the developers disregarded these concerns because they like package management in Linux We don't particularly like a number of aspects of package management in Linux, which is why we went with a very different solution than Linux did: packages are essentially filesystem images which are "mounted" into a pseudo-unionfs. That means installation/uninstallation time is virtually nothing, it's trivial to install packages in `home` as well as `system`, you can boot into old states, etc. > Says a lot about the system then doesn't it? Windows has a portable LibreOffice, even Linux has an AppImage. Windows has LibreOffice because everyone uses Windows, and so people are willing to put the time in to deal with having to patch and compile all LibreOffice's dependencies specially for Windows because there is no real "ports" tree for Windows. AppImages are just 'packages' with all the dependencies in the package. You could make those for Haiku, too, if you wanted. The system package manager isn't stopping you. You could also install software the "old way" of unzipping archives and then copying them somewhere, we also aren't stopping that. This is a new paradigm that hopefully will replace the old ones, but it doesn't necessarily, not if people continue to use the old ways. > Many of the problems I have with package managers were expressed by parts of the Haiku community when it introduced one. And a good number of those users have come around on that as we've ironed out issues or made changes to accommodate their concerns.
rprospero 8y ago
I interpreted your post as implying that the introduction of a package manager as the turning point where you lost interest. Did I get that wrong or are there arguments against package managers that I've missed out on? I understand the dislike or particular implementations, but I had thought that the general idea of automated package management was generally considered a net positive.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  Some of it is that all the implementations suck, but I think that's just a symptom of the root problem: package managers are the opposite of simple. They take control away from users and developers and put them into the hands of whoever is managing repositories. They don't let you decide where applications get stored, often won't let you have multiple versions, add an unnecessary layer between the developer and the user, and generally put you up the creek without a paddle if something goes wrong. There are a lot of reasons to not like package managers if you look around.
  - waddlesplash 8y ago
    > generally put you up the creek without a paddle if something goes wrong I would very much like to hear some anecdotes to back this one up, instead of a general accusation.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
      You've never had your apt database get corrupted? It's an experience you remember, because it means you can never install or uninstall anything ever again. Maybe they've improved on that somehow since it has last happened to me.
      - waddlesplash 8y ago
        Nope, I never have. Haiku's package manager makes that problem impossible, though, because there is no "installed files" database; whatever packages are in the "activated-packages" file get mounted on startup. If that file doesn't exist, it mounts everything in `/system/packages`. And if that's in an inconsistent state, you can boot into a previous state from the bootloader menu. And if that still doesn't work, you can copy a working `packages` directory from another Haiku install.
return_0e 8y ago
Well by not introducing some sort of package manager would make Haiku even less functional. How would you manage all of the dependencies that LibreOffice requires to even run? (Especially updating Qt and WebKit), let alone update the OS itself which BeOS didn't have any of this. I'm pretty sure that nearly every modern OS out there has some sort of package manager. So I would say that by introducing this package manager has actually helped the project gain many usable applications which Haiku previously didn't have for some time.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  > How would you manage all of the dependencies that LibreOffice requires to even run The same way the portable Windows version does, or the Linux AppImage does. It isn't rocket science.
hasahmed 8y ago
This is the first time in my life that I've heard negative words about package managers in general. What's the downside? You can always just download and compile from source yourself if your so against it right
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
  > What's the downside? It didn't come from the Apple gods. The same ones who made two attempts to rewrite an OS with preemption and protected memory support before punting and buying one instead. Clearly they know best about how to structure an OS.
  - chipotle_coyote 8y ago
    In a post about the non-Apple-related open source clone of the non-Apple-related BeOS, someone starts a thread about how much they don't like the style of package managers that come from Linux, which I am fairly sure is, again, not related to Apple, this is relevant how?

waddlesplash 8y ago

https://www.haiku-os.org/about/faq/#is-haiku-based-on-linux https://www.haiku-os.org/about/faq/#is-haiku-based-on-linux