[haiku-development] Re: Haiku future IMH point of view
- From: "Duane Ryan" <bailey.d.r@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:41:09 -0400
A bit late, but +1 for CELL. It's the future, man, and why not? And,
+10 for x86-64. Honestly, I think now that 32 bit should take a back
seat. It's hard to buy a processor right now WITHOUT 64 bit...
Plus, it gives me a reason to work on powerpc more.
-Duane
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 7:15 AM, Michael Phipps
<michael.phipps@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Daniel!
>
> This one should be an FAQ. :-)
>
> Binary backward compatibility is a good idea because it gives a reference
> implementation of an API. It lets developers check their work against a
> "known good" solution. It gives Haiku developers a large (relatively) base of
> software to test their OS code with. It ensures that the API is correctly
> implemented.
>
> Last time I asked the developers how much time and effort backward
> compatibility took, their answer was that it was minimal, except for the work
> on gcc 2.95.3. In other words, the system would not be further along by much
> if they dropped backward compatibility.
>
> Your suggestions for platforms to port to are interesting. It is assumed that
> ANY port of the OS would not have any binary compatibility. Certainly that is
> true for the PPC port that a few people are interested in. Keeping x86-32
> binary compatibility does not IN ANY WAY impact ports to other platforms. The
> additional ability to test and the lack of "discussion" about how things
> "should be" are such a powerful development and testing incentive that I
> would even argue that retaining binary compatibility HELPS ports.
>
> Finally, it was never part of the plan to retain binary compatibility
> forever. It was only ever intended to be PROMISED for R1. It may happen for
> later versions depending on dev interest and on the pain that is caused by
> switching (i.e. how many apps there are without source that would be lost by
> dropping it).
>
> All, of course, IMHO and without any ability to speak for anyone other than
> myself.
>
> Michael
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Daniel Oliveira Costa Lemos" [xspager@xxxxxxxxx]
> Date: 09/09/2008 20:15
> To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [haiku-development] Haiku future IMH point of view
>
> Hello everybody!
>
> Please, someone correct me if i commit any mistake, but the gramatical ones ;)
>
> Thinking about what would be the differential of Haiku, if you take of
> the BeOS binary compatibility. I think the hype about BeOS, at last in
> my opinion, of whom never use BeOS, was, the support for SMP and easy
> use o threads, be programed in a Object Oriented language (C++), and
> it's clean design and legacy free.
>
> IMHO I think Haiku should do what BeOS did in the past, supporting the
> newer hardware platform, and the last technology in hardware for
> desktop. So, I think would be an advantage to Haiku to support
> AMD64/EM64 in the full 64bits mode, and possible a machine with a Cell
> chip (probably PS3) too. Maybe and possible not for now, but some
> point in the future, we would be able to extract maximum performance
> from this architectures using Haiku due it's design that comes from
> BeOS. If you could, imagine BeOS running on a Cell CPU on Sony's PS3.
> All this SEPs ... :D
>
> Sorry if i don't make me understand or if I'm wrong, but my point is
> about the future of Haiku, that it will do what Linux can't do, or be.
> Be a high quality and integrated, open source graphical desktop
> operating system.
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
