5 ms·

Haiku lost its project founder and lost its way -- it has been captured by people whose day jobs are -- literally -- Linux kernel development. Instead of shipp

Haiku lost its project founder and lost its way -- it has been captured by people whose day jobs are -- literally -- Linux kernel development. Instead of shipping BeOS R5 and no more, which was the project's goal since inception, they're bolting on Linuxisms like package management and in the process getting completely lost in the weeds.

yebyen 12y ago
The stated goal of R1 Final has always been complete binary compatibility with BeOS R5, but seriously that was years ago. Package management is far from "a linux-ism" -- you are hard pressed to find a modern operating system that does not have any infrastructural support for taking candy from upstream. Proprietary OS is going to push the app store, by converse the free OS is still going to scale well because the skeleton crew of volunteers can still keep all the supported binary software up to date with security and modernization updates (not necessarily related to Haiku) for the masses who will not compile it for themselves. You may have some insight that I do not regarding project leadership but I respectfully disagree that package management is not just "lost in the weeds." Haiku would not be advancing or at all survivable as a general-purpose OS without it. HaikuPorts/HaikuDepot/pkgman is really slick.
- teacup50 12y ago
  Package management is what you need when you have a huge tree of unstable dependencies that have to be updated in lock-step. Proprietary OS don't have that, which is why: 1) They can support stable binary-only commercial software, and 2) They do not need or benefit from Linux-style package management. BeOS R5 had the stable APIs necessary to achieve a stable OS without Linux style package management. The shift away from that has also involved a shift away from the idea that the OS should ship ABI-stable libraries. Linux-style package management isn't an appropriate tier-one feature for a modern stable desktop OS.
  - wcummings 12y ago
    Even if users don't need "Linux-style" package management, developers definitely do.
    - teacup50 12y ago
      Only for "Linux-style" software, and it need not be built into the base system. In fact, it should not -- if having a stable system on which binary software can be shipped is important, a built-in supported Linux-style dependency management system will undermine that goal entirely.
      - yebyen 12y ago
        I don't get "linux-style." It's not linux-style, it's "built-on-free-software" style. The other style is "I paid someone to do it" style. That's not really a style, it's just polar opposites.

yebyen 12y ago

The stated goal of R1 Final has always been complete binary compatibility with BeOS R5, but seriously that was years ago. Package management is far from "a linux-ism" -- you are hard pressed to find a modern operating system that does not have any infrastructural support for taking candy from upstream. Proprietary OS is going to push the app store, by converse the free OS is still going to scale well because the skeleton crew of volunteers can still keep all the supported binary software up to date with security and modernization updates (not necessarily related to Haiku) for the masses who will not compile it for themselves. You may have some insight that I do not regarding project leadership but I respectfully disagree that package management is not just "lost in the weeds." Haiku would not be advancing or at all survivable as a general-purpose OS without it. HaikuPorts/HaikuDepot/pkgman is really slick.

teacup50 12y ago
Package management is what you need when you have a huge tree of unstable dependencies that have to be updated in lock-step. Proprietary OS don't have that, which is why: 1) They can support stable binary-only commercial software, and 2) They do not need or benefit from Linux-style package management. BeOS R5 had the stable APIs necessary to achieve a stable OS without Linux style package management. The shift away from that has also involved a shift away from the idea that the OS should ship ABI-stable libraries. Linux-style package management isn't an appropriate tier-one feature for a modern stable desktop OS.
- wcummings 12y ago
  Even if users don't need "Linux-style" package management, developers definitely do.
  - teacup50 12y ago
    Only for "Linux-style" software, and it need not be built into the base system. In fact, it should not -- if having a stable system on which binary software can be shipped is important, a built-in supported Linux-style dependency management system will undermine that goal entirely.
    - yebyen 12y ago
      I don't get "linux-style." It's not linux-style, it's "built-on-free-software" style. The other style is "I paid someone to do it" style. That's not really a style, it's just polar opposites.