Haiku ports vs. all-new software

Continuing the discussion from Can copyleft force corporation to donate?:

I do use Manjaro Linux regularly. It is a corporate-backed Arch Linux distribution. It keeps my 10 year old PC purring like a kitten.

To answer your question: performance is why I would build a new POSIX OS from scratch. The Linux kernel is too big to fit into the caches of even a modern CPU. Smaller is better for OS design.

I was going to make a WebAssembly installer for HaikuPorts and had already started it. I got the bum rush then too. I lack the inclination to start a hard fork but it’s not because I think Haiku doesn’t need it.

1 Like

Linux can boot on a 64MB machine (I know because I have one on my desk). Haiku can’t. For smaller devices there is NetBSD.

Haiku not in real text mode, would also need to cut resources to run with low memory.

Puppy Linux is able to run graphically in 64 MB. However, I was hoping the kernel of Haiku would stay smaller than the Linux kernel. Frilly add-ons can be added ad nauseum with optional packages and it shouldn’t affect the size of the kernel nor the base install size.


I tried installing NetBSD on a spare hard drive today, just to see how it stacked up against Linux and Haiku. What a horrific experience that was. I’m still trying to install the package manager.

1 Like

You can select pkgin in the installer, but it’s not the default. If you forget, you’re better off reinstalling NetBSD from scratch, to be honest.

Really? I haven´t used NetBSD in a long time so I had to look this up: NetBSD Documentation: Other FAQs and HOWTOs
That´s 2 commands which you even can copy/paste from the docs. If somebody can´t do this they have no business installing an OS (at least not a UNIX-like) in my opinion. :wink:

It’s a good thing I threw away my commercially purchased SCO UNIX install disks years ago. Thanks for the “heads up”.

I´m sorry if my comment came across a bit snarky and I apologize for it. Sometimes I get frustrated that people don´t seem to read documentation even if it is just a few clicks away.

Thanks. I will probably start over anyway, though.

1 Like

If you just want to try a BSD and have no specific reason why it has to be NetBSD I´d recommend FreeBSD. It´s, in my opinion, slightly more “user friendy” (if there´s anything like that at all, in the BSD world) than the other BSDs.

1 Like

They certainly try to be, anyway. NetBSD doesn’t traditionally care much about desktop users. On the other hand, NetBSD never blew up on me and trashed its disk partition. I guess there are different kinds of user friendly.

1 Like

GhostBSD was a pretty painless install until I ran updates and clobbered the entire installation. It’s a shame too: it could even run the closed-source scripting language called Hollywood on its Linux emulation layer including most of the example scripts. I’ve since found out that GhostBSD is bleeding edge as much as Debian Sid or any other nightly build you can name.

1 Like