Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Haiku OS Resurrects BeOS as Open Source

Posted by Zonk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:41 AM
from the going-back-in-time dept.
Technical Writing Geek writes "The Haiku project, which began shortly after the death of BeOS in 2001, aims to bring together the technical advantages of BeOS and the freedom of open source. 'The project has drawn dozens of contributors who have written over seven million lines of code. Although Haiku is nearly feature-complete, there are still numerous bugs that must be fixed before it is ready for day-to-day use. The design principles behind Haiku are very closely aligned with those of BeOS. The central goal of the Haiku project is to create an operating system that is ideally suited for use on the desktop--this differs significantly from Linux and other open-source operating systems which are intended for use in a diverse range of settings including server and embedded environments.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Haiku (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2008, @10:42AM (#22392624)

    An OS should not
    Be shaped by greed and money
    Open source the world
    • by smitty_one_each (243267) * on Tuesday February 12 2008, @11:04AM (#22392914) Homepage Journal
      Greed and money,
      Like a thicket of beard,
      Obscure good and sunny:
      Let all things be sheared.
      Burma Shave
      • by ehrichweiss (706417) on Tuesday February 12 2008, @11:38AM (#22393372)
        Haiku is easy But sometimes they don't make sense Refrigerator
      • by Floritard (1058660) on Tuesday February 12 2008, @12:03PM (#22393750)
        That's not a haiku you western swine.
        • Re:Greed and money (Score:5, Informative)

          by TheoMurpse (729043) <kylegoetz.gmail@com> on Tuesday February 12 2008, @03:15PM (#22396364) Homepage
          Well, if you want to get technical about it, haikus are set as 5-7-5 mora, not syllables. They are different. In fact, I would argue that most English haiku fail because they should be even shorter than 5-7-5 syllables. One great thing about haiku is that Japanese words have a lot of syllables, relatively speaking, making haiku short, with very dense meaning. English has a great number of monosyllabic words, making writing pleasant English haiku easier than composing Japanese haiku. Furthermore, Japanese haiku typically are two phrases in length, either of the form PHRASE_ONE//PHRASE//TWO or PHRASE//ONE//PHRASE_TWO.

          Beyond that, haiku must have a seasonal word in them; otherwise, it probably is a senryu [wikipedia.org] instead.

          There's also frequently a "turn" that takes the first couple lines and resolves it in a different way. Let us glance briefly at one of Basho's most famous haiku, translated:

          will you turn toward me?
          I am lonely too,
          this autumn nightfall
          Here, we have two phrases (one of a line, and one of two lines). We also have the "turn," in that it is two lines of loneliness, and then resolves, surprisingly, to a statement about the weather. "Surprising" is not the right word, I know. Finally, the entire haiku is sublime, and contains the season word (kigo).

          One final thing: Basho was famous for saying, "Learn the rules; then forget them."
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            I'm not an authority on the subject, but I've always thought the best way to translate the requite for 5-7-5 moras (that's the plural of "mora", unless you want to get classical and say "moræ"—it's a Latin word, not Japanese) is with 5-7-5 stressed syllables. That's traditionally how entity-counting is done in English poetry: For instance, Old English poetry had four stressed syllables per line (with a variable number of unstressed syllables), whereas in Shakespeare's iambic pentameter, there's f
      • I wonder how many of our youthful readers are staring at your post, muttering "WTF?"

        Poor kids...
    • by StCredZero (169093) on Tuesday February 12 2008, @11:26AM (#22393210)
      Haiku is an example of code reuse par-excellence! You can get a normal desktop footprint into something like 60 megabytes. (Not one of these cut-down small footprint distros.) It's how an object-oriented multimedia operating system should be done.

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=236331448076587879 [google.com]

      Haiku is damn cool
      The One OS that follows
      Don't Repeat Yourself
        • AmigaDOS booted from an 800k floppy and needed less than 512k of ram. It had all these basic gui things: file management, task management, a user friendly command line shell and so on. I do like the BeOS style interface, but its greatest accomplishment is not its size.

          Yeah, but Amiga printing support was terrible, and that brings up an important limitation / benefit. AmigaDOS had a huge advantage that today's operating systems cannot have. It was welded directly to the hardware. Witness GDI in Windows, or
  • Interesting.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fyngyrz (762201) * on Tuesday February 12 2008, @10:45AM (#22392664) Homepage Journal

    But I don't look forward to the long climb up the curve of identifying and cleaning up what, going by past experience, is likely to be quite a nest of security issues.

    Having said that, if it is actually like BeOS in that it handles multimedia similarly (that is, *really* well and without even a nod towards DRM), I'd be very likely to put some effort into using it. Linux's swap paradigm is completely unsuited to applications that need to respond *right now*, OS X is just about the same (it's only been a matter of hours since I shook my fist at Leopard for swapping out things I was using), and Windows... ugh. Going completely the wrong way.

    I suppose it'll be a while yet, though. [prepares to wait]

    • Re:Interesting.... (Score:4, Informative)

      by FreeGamer (1001924) on Tuesday February 12 2008, @10:49AM (#22392716) Homepage
      Haiku is a ground-up rewrite of BeOS. The only thing shared between the two is the general design and the support for BeOS R5 applications. Haiku addresses many of the shortcomings in BeOS R5 (e.g. better POSIX compliance). I'm sure they are considering security as well.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        When you say a ground up rewrite, I worry. This is because the real-time nature of the OS is something that none of the other "big 3" have gotten right; there isn't a one of them that won't glitch your audio or video just at the wrong time (not that there is a right time.) BeOS was unique in that it was designed to be real time from day one and -- and this is the kicker -- they got it right. For the first time in modern OS history. So the issue here is, given that this is a rewrite to (presumably) R5 inter

        • Re:Interesting.... (Score:5, Informative)

          by alan_dershowitz (586542) on Tuesday February 12 2008, @11:15AM (#22393078)

          When you say a ground up rewrite, I worry. This is because the real-time nature of the OS is something that none of the other "big 3" have gotten right
          The kernel of Haiku is a fork of the open source NewOS kernel. It was written by Travis Geiselbrecht, who was a kernel hacker for Be, Inc. My understanding is that conceptually the kernels are similar.
        • Re:Interesting.... (Score:5, Informative)

          by deKernel (65640) <timfbarber.yahoo@com> on Tuesday February 12 2008, @11:20AM (#22393140)
          I could be mistaken here, but BeOS was never label by the company as a 'real-time' OS. They described it as a true multimedia OS which translates into a highly responsive OS to the users input. Big difference.
    • Re:Interesting.... (Score:4, Informative)

      by paulbd (118132) on Tuesday February 12 2008, @11:51AM (#22393580) Homepage

      "linux swap paradigm".

      i suggest you read the output of man memlock. you clearly don't know enough about linux (or POSIX) to be making generic hand waving comments that appear to be intended to authoritative.

      when you're done with memlock, check into SCHED_FIFO scheduling too. oh, and /etc/security/limits.conf while you're there. the problems with multimedia "performance" on linux are mostly distro-related: distro's do not generally ship in a way that lets ordinary users run apps that request the use of these facilities. media-centric distros (Ubuntu Studio) or overlays (Planet CCRMA) fix this.

    • Re:Interesting.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Lally Singh (3427) on Tuesday February 12 2008, @12:44PM (#22394252) Journal
      It sounds like what you want is a combination of:
      1. Real-time scheduling. Preferably hard-real time (for stable video)
      2. Page locking. Don't let RT tasks page out
      3. Drivers written to obey the scheduling demands (e.g. don't wait for a disk while we have an RT task ready)


      It can all be done on regular desktop OSs.

      Challenges are:
      1. Requiring RT scheduling and page locking usually require a good level of access. For that, you'll probably want a capabilities-based permission model to to keep quicktime from giving people backdoors into root access
      2. Keeping device drivers off the RT thread path. I'd honestly prefer a separate I/O processor to do that stuff, so the CPU can keep chunking along. Dedicating RT threads to one core and device drivers to another isn't a bad way to splice up modern dual-core CPUs.
      3. It's easy to end up page-locking a lot of pages in for processes, large platform shared libs & all


  • Links (Score:5, Informative)

    by ForexCoder (1208982) on Tuesday February 12 2008, @10:50AM (#22392744)
    A direct link in the summery would have been nice:
    http://www.haiku-os.org/ [haiku-os.org]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiku_(operating_system) [wikipedia.org]
  • by quanticle (843097) on Tuesday February 12 2008, @10:51AM (#22392754) Homepage

    Haiku's network performance is better, for instance, because the networking functionality is integrated directly into the kernel rather than running in userspace as it did in BeOS.

    Am I the only one that thinks that this is a horrible idea from a security perspective? Also, wouldn't the integration of network functionality mean that Haiku is about as much of a microkernel as Windows NT?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Linux's networking stack is in the kernel. Firewall too.

      So, your concern may not be kernel-levelness, but maybe the privilege with which networking runs? Or, perhaps if the networking kernel component can bring the whole OS to a screeching halt?

      OS's are complicated, so it's easy to nit-pick from ./. That's a bad habit though because the more different OS's are out there being worked on the better off we all are.

      As an example to all, I'll fire up qemu this afternoon and install haiku on my trusty old think
      • Just for trivia.

        The BeOS network "stack" was at one point modular and outside the kernel. In doing so the performance was not acceptable so it was folded in to the kernel. Someone else will have to chime in with what release this happened.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          "Someone else will have to chime in with what release this happened."

          BeOS R5, the last BeOS release by Be inc still had the network stack in user space. There was an in-house development version that had networking in the kernel, but this never made it into a commercial release because Be went bankrupt. This version was at one point leaked onto the internet, though.

          Zeta [zeta-os.com], which is based on the original BeOS binaries and/or source code has the network stack integrated in the kernel.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        As an example to all, I'll fire up qemu this afternoon and install haiku on my trusty old thinkpad. If 100 ./'ers did it and provided feedback to the project, it's a benefit to all.

        Very true, though I recommend using VMware's free VMware Player [vmware.com] instead of qemu. It's available on both Windows & Linux and performs about a million times better (for running Haiku, at least).

        And yes, if you find bugs please report them: http://dev.haiku-os.org/ [haiku-os.org]

  • Haiku OS Website (Score:3, Informative)

    by KermodeBear (738243) on Tuesday February 12 2008, @10:52AM (#22392776) Homepage
    It would have been nice for the summary to include a link to the Haiku OS [haiku-os.org] site.
  • by thewiz (24994) on Tuesday February 12 2008, @11:36AM (#22393348)
    Great... Just what I need, more zombied processes.
  • RIP (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DNS-and-BIND (461968) on Tuesday February 12 2008, @12:01PM (#22393730) Homepage
    "I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense - I deserve it."

    -- Jean-Louis Gassée, CEO Be, Inc.

  • Than you BeOS (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Faux_Pseudo (141152) <Faux_Pseudo AT yahoo DOT com> on Tuesday February 12 2008, @12:18PM (#22393942) Homepage
    I used BeOS for about 20 minutes back when it was around. I would have spent longer playing with it but something amzing happened. When I went to to check if it could recognize my modem it did and it connected to my ISP. Which was something I was unable to do with any version of Linux I had tried so far. So I quickly started digging through the differances in the code of the Linux version I was using at the time and BeOS to find out where the magic happend. I didn't find it but I asked some others and turned out I was only one line of code away from fixing the problem. /bin/setserial -b /dev/modem IRQ 3
    I never got back around to trying BeOS but I am ever so thankful for it providing me proof that my modem was supposed to be working. After that I deleted windows from the 1.3 gig hard drive and was Linux only. Been windows clean for about 9 years now and I owe it all to BeOS. Maybe when Haiku comes out I will dedicate at bit more time to it. Maybe it will be or provide an alternative to Windows for more people.
  • by nguy (1207026) on Tuesday February 12 2008, @05:46PM (#22399010)
    The central goal of the Haiku project is to create an operating system that is ideally suited for use on the desktop

    The degree to which an OS is suited to use on the desktop is primarily determined by (1) available applications, (2) ease of use, (3) driver support, and (4) stability. Linux has BeOS beat on (1) and (3). There is almost no work on usability on Haiku. And even in the best case, Haiku is at best equal to Linux on (4).
    • Re:Evolution (Score:5, Informative)

      by alan_dershowitz (586542) on Tuesday February 12 2008, @10:59AM (#22392862)
      Actually there is a fairly substantial legacy issue associated with BeOS/Haiku, but not in the way you are thinking. The ABI [wikipedia.org] used by BeOS is not supported in GCC anymore. Haiku Release 1 is striving for binary-compatibility with BeOS. What this means is that if you want to run original BeOS applications, it can only be compiled against GCC version 2.x. Haiku can be compiled against later versions of GCC, but you will lose the ability to run older software unless it's recompiled for Haiku, which may be impossible if it's closed source.

      there were other legacy issues with modern hardware that existed with BeOS as a result of having died so young, but these don't exist with Haiku.
      • God, that was really unclear. OK, first of all if the OS is compiled with GCC v.2.x so that you get binary compatibility with BeOS, that means that ALL software for your system has to be compiled against GCC v2.x. With regards to "legacy modern hardware," what I meant was that BeOS just plain doesn't run on many hardware that came after Be died, because of incompatibilities in the kernel. BeOS Max Edition is an unofficial "distribution" of the free "personal" version of BeOS which includes some binary kerne
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          If I understand you, it sounds like haiku/the beos user movement needs someone to intentionally break gcc-2.x-binary-compatibility (like redhat did with their gcc2.95 in RH8) to kickstart the move out of the old software. Possibly there's no one Free-BeOS users' group/os-project that has the numbers to catalyze all the others into switching. Too many forks, not enough people to choose just one and stick to it. Which is a shame, from the time I ran BeOS Max PE, it was a work of genius.
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              is there a particular reason you can't have both? (and statically link the libraries needed for the older-gcc-compiled binaries? it would take up disk space, but that's cheap these days...)
        • I know it will kill the performance to some degree, but why not create a compatibility layer ala WINE for BEOS apps ? BINE perhaps?
    • Re:Evolution (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Fred_A (10934) <fred.fredshome@org> on Tuesday February 12 2008, @11:09AM (#22392998) Homepage

      It would be nice to see it not only bringing back the technical advancements that once were available but to also see it bringing some new features.
      Applications would be nice too.

      It's nice to have all those systems, but when people are looking at creatingsoftware for an open system for the desktop, they target Linux, possibly with a side of BSD. If the result compiles on Be, that's an unintended bonus, but nobody in his right mind is going to go out of his way to make it so.

      The people of Bibble Labs who make commercial (and closed source) photography software which I buy from them sell their stuff for Windows, Mac OS and Linux (which is why I use it).

      The last time I looked at Be, it wasn't too hard to *port* Unix/Linux software to it. However it really needs to be able to "just" run it, at least for the Linux binaries (like the *BSD do with the Linux libs). Otherwise it's going to be a repeat of 1999 (or whenever that was) when everybody played with the Be live CD or created a little partition to poke at for a while, and then went back to Linux or Windows or whatever the system where his software and data lived was.

      Be was/is a nice system, among other things I liked the ideas in the filesystem. But unless there's actually a reason to use it (and there's none), nobody will. Unless you're into that kind of thing and you still have a little space next to your OS/2 partition. But then you're probably too far gone anyway.
      • Re:First poem (Score:5, Informative)

        by TheRealMindChild (743925) on Tuesday February 12 2008, @11:09AM (#22393006) Homepage Journal
        Did you ever even use BeOS? Did't you see the "app_server", "net_server", "recyclebin_server", etc? What exactly do you think a microkernel is? BeOS made EVERYTHING a service.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          What I want is a computer where the "OS" is just a virtual PC launcher. I would have multiple OS installs on scaled down "OS" virtual drives and then a common (shared) "user" drive that consumes the rest of the available space. An OS wouldn't be shutdown or started, it would just be resumed (and in the case of Microsoft, reset occassionally). And the virtual environment would have a set of drivers for my hardware so that my virtual PC's could use full 3D rendering and sound and whatever else I stick in t
          • The system you described is what I use every day. It is called Moka5 BareMetal [moka5.com], and you boot into it and select what virtual environment you want to run. The virtual environments (what they call "LivePCs") automatically update when the version on the server is updated. It keeps the user data (documents, settings, etc.) separate so you can revert and update the system without losing your data. You can suspend them and they start up pretty quickly. Makes using XP and Vista a lot more pleasant, plus I hav

        • Re:First poem (Score:4, Insightful)

          by keithius (804090) on Tuesday February 12 2008, @12:02PM (#22393736) Homepage

          What I really want is an OS that boots, from cold, almost instantly, and from which I can run my games.
          You can already get what you really want. It's called a game console. Go back to using cartridges and you've got everything you want - almost instant cold boot and it plays your games.

          Enjoy.

    • by peragrin (659227) on Tuesday February 12 2008, @11:31AM (#22393280)
      in 1997 Beos could run multiple videos in real time and remain responsive to the user. This was back when playing one video on windows or quicktime introduced dramatic slow downs on the same hardware.

      Beos originally had a database file system that MSFT has been trying to duplicate since. BeOS had a local file search in 1997 that would rival OS X 10.4 or Windows Vista.

      they were a decade ahead of their time, and got killed by MSFT because of it. Unfortunately parts of the GUI and system now are behind the others. It is a bit dated, but there are many things that can still be learned by the other OS/GUI makers.
      • by samkass (174571) on Tuesday February 12 2008, @11:39AM (#22393390) Homepage Journal
        As a former BeOS fan, I agree it was a great OS, but let's not whitewash the past. They had some significant design challenges ahead of them if they wanted to go mainstream. Everything from the "fragile base-class problem", which they never really solved, to support for lots of functionality most users consider basic these days had the potential to eat away at the performance.

        BeOS had a local file search in 1997 that would rival OS X 10.4 ...which is why Apple hired the guy to help develop MacOS X 10.5.

        they were a decade ahead of their time, and got killed by MSFT because of it.

        "got killed"? Apple didn't buy them, and Microsoft encouraged VARs to not sell it pre-installed, but the simple fact is that it wasn't really valuable enough for most people to want to buy it. Windows 95, Windows 2000, linux and MacOS 9 were "good enough" for most folks across most market segments.
        • by MBGMorden (803437) on Tuesday February 12 2008, @11:56AM (#22393654)

          "got killed"? Apple didn't buy them, and Microsoft encouraged VARs to not sell it pre-installed, but the simple fact is that it wasn't really valuable enough for most people to want to buy it. Windows 95, Windows 2000, linux and MacOS 9 were "good enough" for most folks across most market segments.
          This I must agree with. BeOS was like an amazing concept OS or technical demo, but given that it was essentially a distant 4th (if that) in desktop market share, behind Windows, Mac, and Linux, it just didn't have the momentum it needed. Not the huge library of commercial apps that Windows had, or the trendiness that MacOS had, or the open source movement and apps that Linux had. It just ended up being a neat toy more than a useful tool.

          Interesting tidbit though: from what I've read, BeOS was Apple's #1 choice as a base for what they wanted to build into Mac OS X. BeOS's CEO wanted $400 million for the company though, and Apple was only prepared to offer $100 million. So, Apple ended up buying out NeXT instead, and based OS X on that. Now OS X is a WONDERFUL platform, and that might have even bee the best choice, but I really, really wonder what MacOS X would look like today if it HAD been based on BeOS. My gut feeling is that we'd have an even nicer Macintosh operating system than we do now.
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Anonymous Coward

              Actually, Apple had a relatively good new OS, MacOS 8, a real protected-mode OS which got as far as a first developer release. But it wasn't backwards compatible with old MacOS programs, and apps would have to be rewritten. In particular, Microsoft Office for Mac would need an overhaul, and Microsoft wasn't willing to do one. The same problem applied to BeOS.

              You're not remembering things clearly. Assuming you're talking about Copland (as opposed to the released MacOS 8, which was something quite different), the design was actually quite compromised in order to guarantee backwards compatibility. Nobody would have had to rewrite just to get their applications running.

              Describing it as 'relatively good' is questionable. Ever booted one of the Copland Developer Releases? I managed to coax it into happening once. It was not pretty.

              (I think I still have a copy o

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              I'd say that if you look back at OS history then, it's clear why Apple went with Next.

              BeOS had a lot of buzz and a lot of attention from the media producing world, and in fact, that's where it actually made the most real impact: Level Control Systems was selling a BeOS-based theatre system that actually ran some Broadway and Vegas productions for years, Tascam made a multitrack recording system based on it, Steinberg ported their "Nuendo" system to it, etc. And that's why a lot of people thought it made mor
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Microsoft encouraged VARs to not sell it pre-installed,

          Let's not whitewash the past. Microsoft used it's monopoly position to strong arm VARs into not selling it pre-installed with Windows. MS stated clearly that the VARs had to either stop pre-installing BeOS with Windows or had to pay retail for Windows, which would have been a death sentence for any VAR distributing BeOS.

          That was the basis for one of the anti-trust lawsuits filed against Microsoft.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2008, @11:39AM (#22393388)
      >>Multimedia works just great on my Windows XP machine.

      Please don't take this as an insult, but the reason you feel that multimedia works "just great" on your XP box is probably because you've not seen anything better. In the same way propeller-driven aircraft were just fine until jet engines came along. BeOS *was* better than anything else at the time (Can't speak to Haiku, as I've not run it). I ran BeOS as my primary OS for several years and in those days Windows would struggle to play two (or sometimes just one) video smoothly, with well-tracked audio. BeOS had no problem on the same hardware with a half-dozen simultaneous videos. It could simultaneously import video, mix audio tracks and play video streams, render 3D graphics, etc. and when it did slow down, it did so gracefully and never failed to respond the way that Windows would (e.g. click a menu, wait 20 seconds for Win to load the code and draw the menu).

      The main thing is, BeOS was amazingly fast and responsive in the days of I486 CPUs and 128Meg RAM. Menus and UI elements responded instantly. Cold boot to completely loaded desktop, on the net, HDD light off and ready to work? Something like 15 seconds. Windows took something like 2 1/2 minutes by comparison and the HDD never quit rattling. Why? Clean design internally and small size -- about 50MB for the whole OS including sample applications, code, and demos. (Or to put it another way, about the size of one of the hundred-or-so security patches for Windows XP.)

      From a programmer's perspective, BeOS was the best-designed OS I've ever coded for. Everything was logically named, well structured and designed with threading in mind. (In fact, every window ran in its own thread). Written entirely in C++, it was just brilliantly designed and easy to code for!

      Personally, I'm pretty excited about Haiku. IMO, BeOS was the best OS from the 90s. (BeOS was created by a spin-off group from Apple France, the same group that defied Steve Jobs' direct orders and developed the Color Macintosh (early 1990s?) and saved Apple. I was profoundly disappointed that Apple chose NeXTStep over BeOS for what was to become MacOSX.

      So, that's my long-winded way of saying "give it a try! You have no idea what you're missing."
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          It could just be idealogical. Not everyone agrees with all the stipulations of the GPL, and so given they choice they may simply prefer to work with BSD licensed code when they can.