Slashdot Mirror
Haiku OS Will Get New Service Manager
jones_supa writes: Axel Dörfler writes in his blog that he is working on a replacement for Haiku OS's current shell script based boot process. It would be replaced with something more flexible, a solution similar to OS X's launchd and Linux's systemd. While there is still a lot to do, the new project called launch_daemon is now feature complete in terms of being able to completely reproduce the current boot process. Since the switch to their package manager, there was no longer a way to influence the boot process at all. The only file you could change was the UserBootscript which is started only after Tracker and Deskbar — the whole system is already up at this point. The new service manager gives the power back to you, and also allows arbitrary software to be launched on startup. Alternatively, you can prevent system components from being started at all if you so wish. Furthermore, it allows for event based application start, start on demand, a multi-threaded boot process, and even enables you to talk to servers before they actually started.
No no no.
The summary even says: "The new service manager gives the power back to you"
Why does this happen?
Bad existing manager?
Hopefully this one not suck.
It's nice to see the team still working on Haiku.
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
"Since some time, I am working on a replacement of our current shell script based boot process to something more flexible, a similar solution to Apple's launchd, and Linux's systemd."
Nobody has convinced me that systemd is actually bad, as opposed to different.
All the bitching seems to be people just hating different and others marching in lockstep.
So WAH!
The people complaining about systemd aren't complaining because it's different. They're complaining about it because it's utter shit!
For crying out loud, systemd's most vocal opponents are career sysadmins with the most experience. These are the people who are least bothered by change! They're completely accustomed to it. Change has been the story of their careers. In fact, they're the biggest supporters of change, when it's done right.
When you're a professional admin who has dealt with various versions of Windows, AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, OS X, Linux, BSD/OS, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and many other OSes each week for years or decades, change itself is a total non-issue.
People have a problem with systemd because it has so often done something that no init system should ever do: prevented the operating system from fully booting.
Read through the mailing list archives of the major Linux distros that have switched to it. Read through the bug reports. It's disturbing how many problems people report with it. It's especially disturbing when a project like Debian, which for so many years prided itself on a very high level of reliability, has its reputation tarnished thanks to its awful transition to systemd.
The opposition to systemd has never been about change itself. It has been about changing to something that experience shows is rife with serious problems.
The opponents of systemd would gladly accept change, but this change needs to bring improvements, not problems.
I always thought that system startup should be controllable by the user, but that dependencies ought to be mapped graphically so that you have some idea of what ELSE you're going to be knocking out by stopping, for instance, system interrupts or the RTC.
That said, I'm pretty fond of init.d and crew. :/
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
It's been over 2.5 years since their last "alpha" release. I figured it had been abandoned completely by now.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Except his response (until the insults) is fairly reasonable - the OS is alpha quality at best, and is not suitable for production use. He also points out that the project is lacking in drivers and firmware currently. Furthermore, he comments about having issues with a 1440p display - there is a fair chance the developers do not have access to a 1440p display to test with (not exactly a common display resolution). Finally, I doubt marketshare is a goal of the Haiku project (and there are many projects (see the GNOME desktop) that claim that marketshare is not a goal of theirs).
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
I'd argue that the reason for low OSS OS adoption on the desktop has much more to do with the target market. Haiku can basically exist as a little niche OS with very few users who only care about their specific hardware configurations because at the end of the day it's an OS for people who were fans of BeOS. It doesn't have some killer feature or some market it's aiming to grab.
Linux on the other hand can be made into what you want. While there are some vendors who build out to catch the desktop market there are a limited number. Furthermore, there is the question of weather or not most devs would want a larger desktop market in the first place. Why have more bug reports, more uninformed support requests, more complaining users when you don't actually monetarily benefit. If we're going to start encouraging a market where Linux will rule the desktop we need to find some way to properly pay the developers of the software that allows it to be a desktop OS.
It will be THE OS of choice on the world Post-skynet but pre-Reploid maverick era.
You are sadly wrong. If Haiku didn't still have the goal of being a BeOS clone instead of a modern OS inspired by BeOS we maybe could have had a useful system instead of the half-ready mess that it is now.
But improvements of the bad parts of BeOS isn't the problem.