Slashdot Mirror
DotGNU Ported to PocketPC
t3rmin4t0r writes "The Pocket PC# group has ported DotGNU Portable.net to PocketPC. This is a significant step because the .NET Compact Framework SDK is heavily licensed, unlike the .NET SDK available for free from MSDN. Thanks to PocketPC#, now you can build Window.Forms C# applications for PocketPC without submitting to Microsoft's exhorbitant SDK licensing fees. Portability to embedded/low-end hardware is one of Portable.net's stated goals.
DotGNU Portable.net also works on 9 major CPU architectures according to gentoo's portage. The Darwin-ports features a cool package with Windows.Forms for Mac OS X. Handhelds like iPAQ or Zaurus have also ports (the iPAQ one features Windows.Forms). Esoteric hardware like
the Sony Playstation 2 or the Microsoft XBox can also run Portable.net."
This is great for people looking to develop on handhelds and smartphones such as myself. Programming for these devices really brings me back to the good old days in the 80s where one person could create a killer app or game!
Urge to post... fading... fading... RISING!... fading... fading... gone.
isn't DOT NET full of patents though (not that its gonna effect 90% of the globe)
doesnt it strike anyone as odd that i have to pay MS to make their product successful
licensing means its never yours so why bother
These two companies have been beaten by Microsoft playing the game better then them.
So what are they doing 15 years later? Playing back with Linux.
Open Source is not about free for these guys, it is increasing becoming a corporate game (Novell and IBM) with big profits.
Mono / dotGNU is about trying to treat the application developers equal. This is a chance to start over with Java-like technology.
Like it or not, don't ignore C# / dotNet. It likely has more users than Sun got in 10 years, anyone have numbers to share on that?
I'd never heard of a runtime fee associated with .Net compact framework.
Is this a lack of research or is there truth to this?
Take a look at the screenshots page. Spin through those shots and just try to keep a smile off of your face. Seeing OSX, windows, and foss all on the same screen and system? C'mon, it wasn't that long ago that all of this was just little dreams in some heads. Seriously, the linux kernel and gnu software have started what i see as pretty serious revolution. Did it not strike anyone that MS is finally, and visibly showing concern about the gnu/linux advances? This is really exciting stuff, well, to me anyway.
i know i'm wandering, but think about it, longhorn is a long way off, linux is moving....and very fast, i might add, and besides the ridiculous prices, OSX/Apple will be the only real competitor in the next few years. This nonsense involving Sun's current flip-flopping is merely hope confused with death throes.
So, the window is open and with more tools like DotGNU wrapping systems together, damn, i'm looking forward to what will happen in the next few years. Good stuff, i think.
people do not agree with the statement, and it is a touchy subject (for some) and is therefore flaimbait.
I don't agree with it, but hey. That's how things work around here.
Score: -1, Offtopic/Flame-bait.
It's slashdot. Anything which may be considered a controversial opinion (i.e. one which doesn't bow down to open source) is immediately modded as flamebait as no one will actually defend open source with arguments.
Even if a valid question is raised the gpl fanboys try and hide it. Which is a pain for people like me who use proproatary and open source software all day. I like open source but for some things I need my proprietary apps, I'm a pragmatist more interested in creating products than living to some moral standard.
-- Be careful what you say. Someone might remind you about it another day.
What are you talking about? This is slashdot. There's no room for intelligent debate here.
Then create a login/sign in, post what you think. If you're not a depraved moron most people will like some of your comments, so you're likely to get up to at least a 1 (if I can do it anyone can) at which point some people will have to mod you down (but it means they'll read you). If enough people do this people might change.
On the other hand bitching about it as an AC gets achieves nothing.
Free and Open Source does not mean the same. There are Open Source softwares with restricting licenses that forbids modification or redistribution. Open source means you might have a look at the source. Free means you are free to use, distribute, modify the software and distribute the modified version.
...before the Nastygram(TM) from MS's lawyer corps arrives?
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
here, here, here and here.
I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
By that definition, it sounds like GPL software is open source and BSD-licensed software is "Free". With BSD software I can do whatever I want with the code, but with the GPL I'm told to give up my right to source code secrecy.
DotGNU has about 5-6 developers working on everything :)... lend a hand ...
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
Yeah, I remember how 1983 unix had loadable kernel modules, a /proc filesystem, Video4Linux APIs and hotplug device detection. Idiot.
And Lisp is superior to either of them. The world is not Democrat vs. Republican, Christian vs. Muslim, C# vs. Java.
BOTH C# and Java are mediocre 21st-century-COBOL languages. Open Source people would do far better writing in less pedestrian languages.
No. Copying is fine. But when MS or IBM copies, they subsequently claim to "own" the "innovation" and prevent other people copying further like the hypocritical antiscientific moneygrabbing assholes they are.
It's such tyrannical restriction of the spread of information that is evil. Intellectual "property" laws are the crime, not copying.
Open Source is not about free for these guys, it is increasing becoming a corporate game (Novell and IBM) with big profits.
It is about "free", as in "freedom": without the free and open source licenses that this software comes under, companies like Novell, IBM, etc. could never cooperate on these kinds of projects--by the time their lawyers have worked out their IP agreements, the market opportunities have evaporated. It is the freedom guaranteed by free software licenses that allows big companies to cooperate. The fact that they also don't have to pay licensing fees is related, but it isn't the deciding factor: everybody knows that free software still has non-zero cost of ownership (and companies like Microsoft are just stating the obvious when they point that out).
Like it or not, don't ignore C# / dotNet. It likely has more users than Sun got in 10 years,
I suspect it's not up to Java levels yet. But it will be: C# offers exactly what Sun/Java lacks: the freedom to do with it whatever you want, and the freedom for big companies to contribute to the same piece of software without getting lawyers involved and without having one contributor benefit disproportionately.
Which point of my definition fails for GPL? GPL-ed software can be used freely. It can be modified (retaining the GPL licence). It can be distributed. And the modified version can be distributed (under GPL).
Actually RMS told me these 4 points of freedom, do you think he was wrong?
An example for Non-Free Open Source software is the OpenWatcom compiler. Youngsters should read it's license only under parental supervision.
What legal basis would Microsoft's lawyers have to complain? C# and large parts of the libraries clearly are not Microsoft intellectual property.
Anyone care to elaborate on why the .NET Compact Framework is so "bad" compared to the regular desktop .NET framework?
.NET in the last year. Its WAY different than 6.0 and in many ways it really looks like Java (does anyone else notice that?) toString, stringbuffer, now inheritance, interfaces, now it has threading...lots of stuff Java was famous for. Did anyone else notice that? I've heard C# is like Java but crap, I think VB .NET is moreso in many ways...
I don't have time to dig it out but I'm sure others are curious as well.
Additionally why C#? I came from a C, C++, Java and PERL background and began using VB
Ah, but GPL source can't be used in a product unless it too becomes GPL. In addition, you can't take GPL source and hide it in a proprietary app. Thus, GPL software indeed has restrictions to freedom.
Proprietary software itself is a massive restriction to freedom - the very idea that you should have any right to me passing on COPIES of information is fascist and evil. The GPL only restricts you if you beleive in intellectual "property" laws applied to software - Your present ability to have the government slap me in jail for copying a proprietary program is a far greater abridgement of my freedom than the GPL will ever be.
Don't forget many of the Free Software hard-core's line is:
"Without copyright, the GPL would be unenforceable. It would also be unnecessary".
This is using open source to provide free marketing for Microsoft. First, take a microsoft technology (.Net), then spend a lot of time and effort duplicating a subset of .Net, which will never be a complete implementation as Microsoft haven't given out all the libraries. Microsoft then have cut-down versions of '.Net' distributed on a range of systems, with no effort required from them, and they can say 'for the real, full, professional .Net experience come to Windows'. I view the .Net clones as persisting the (wrong) impression that open source software is an amateurish attempt to copy professional software.
There are better ways. Why not use Java? Its free, and there are many Java clones that are full-featured and run on Pocket-PC and PalmOS.
If you don't like Java.. why not actually be innovative and develop a new portable bytecode and languages to run on it? If not a new bytecode, why not help the work on parrot? Why not show that in VM technology open source coders can do more than simply play catch-up with Microsoft?
s/you should have any right to me/any right to stop me/
D'oh. That's what I get for not previewing - but damnit, it's a very emotional topic for me - copyright and freedom of speech are fundamentally opposed.
DotGNU's java compiler can compile stuff like this (which was my Demo program for a LONG time).
It uses parts of classpath + C# glue and never got fully developed because nobody was interested. (and the javalib therefore never hit the CVS)
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
I just bought a new Ipaq which is pocket pc based.I've been trying to find good apps for it but theres hardly anything thats free and good.Most Pocket PC apps come to you with a "relatively" hefty price tag.
So like many others wondering about this, would DotGNU Ported to PocketPC bring more free and good applications for the users?? I think thats the bottomline rather than the C# or C++ issues.
Lord of the Binges.
Anything which may be considered a controversial opinion (i.e. one which doesn't bow down to open source) is immediately modded as flamebait as no one will actually defend open source with arguments.
.NET) represents open source here and Java represents the proprietary solution.
That's completely backwards. C# (in the form of Mono and Portable
Likewise, postings critical of Apple's GUI and window system, both of which are proprietary, often get modded down. As far as I can tell, postings critical of X11 get modded down much less, even though X11 represents the open source solution. I suspect that X11 users are secure enough about the future of their platform that they are willing to debate, rather than suppress, criticism, while users of those other platforms are worried about their futures.
I'm a pragmatist more interested in creating products than living to some moral standard.
People who advocate open source solutions are pragmatists--they simply are pragmatists with longer time horizons (and probably much more experience) than you. You see, they have lived through a couple of generations of operating systems and languages, and they know the kind of havoc proprietary solutions can wreak on their business.
Or do you seriously think that companies like IBM, Novell, or McDonalds are adopting open source models because of some "moral standard"? They do it because it is good for business and because it works.
DotGNU Support in Parrot CVS | Parrot Support in DotGNU CVS
*g* -- I like parrot -- In fact I want Parrot to become the FreeSoftware VM :)
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
Anything which may be considered a controversial opinion (i.e. one which doesn't bow down to open source) is immediately modded as flamebait as no one will actually defend open source with arguments.
Actually, no. The reason that the great-grandparent was modded troll was because it offered no argument. It was a piece of content-free flamebait. Of course, I wouldn't expect someone with your illustrious posting history to admit or understand this.
I may be wrong here, but last time I looked, the only 'heavily licensed' part of developing for the .NET Compact Framework I could find was that I had to buy Visual Studio.NET 2003 in order to use it. There are no licenses per se for developing/deploying with the .NET CF, so what exactly does Pocket C# exist for?
Now, as far as I know, no SDK exists for Compact Framework 1.0, but one is slated for 2.0, as mentioned in this post. It seems an SDK doesn't exist due to time constraints, rather than licensing requirements.
Pretty please, could we have something new, or at least something pleasant to use ? More Microsoft interface clones do not in my book make the world a better place.
Well, the number of Microsoft interface clones is completely irrelevant to your complaint. The only thing that matters is how many nonclones are available, and there are a number (starting with the UNIX console clone).
So, let's be constructive, shall we? What is it that you're looking for?
Have you tried the open source Plan 9/UNIX II? Is this closer to what you want or further away? In what ways?
Is the Apple interface more to your taste? Ratpoison? A jack into your skull? A magic wand?
I'm not going to just yell "Show me the code!" at you. I happen to believe that noncoders have a perfectly acceptable, even valuable, role to play in the development of software in the discourse phase of things.
But discourse requires discourse, not just complaints. Point in a direction rather than just bitch about where you're standing. Any damned fool can bitch, thus there is no particular shortage of bitching in the world, thus most of it simply gets ignored.
As it well should be.
KFG
I'm really really sick at those MS Fanboy ! Every thread is full of that kind of stupid post !! It's becoming hard to find some relevant information about OpenSource or Microsoft/Apple these day. When i want to get info about a OSS or MS technlogy, i'd really want to be informed without the vocal MS Customer useless opinions !!
I tried that. I got bitchslapped by the editors of this site. What I had to say did not fit in with the prevailing groupthink here at slashdot.
C is an ANSI standard language and has been implemented by hundreds of groups and companies, including all the major OS vendors.
.NET and this implementation are attempts to define, control, and open (or close) these basic layers. So if you take .NET seriously (which I do not, but that's a personal opinion), an open source equivalent is obvious and necesssary. Proprietary platforms extract a huge tax on their developers and customers: the lesson of Bell Labs' inventions and how they ended-up changing the world shows that gcc, Linux, and the thousands of other "clones" represent heroic and vital investments in reducing the cost of IT so that its benefits can reach beyond the elite.
Unix was largely standardised as POSIX long before Linux existed.
Both these (and many other technologies, such as parser generators, editors, networking) form basic layers of what has become a huge and sophisticated pyramid of applications.
Layers like
If you are still using the same applications as in 1983, then you have some catching up to do. In 1983 I was using vi and assembler and some C, and seriously, things have changed a little bit since then...
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
Lisp?!? Haskell!
While running DotGNU, of course. Keeping your standard Palm OS... nope. It's just like running Windows (PocketPC) or Linux (DotGNU) today.
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
pnet.darwinports.com/
http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
"DotGNU will be a complete replacement for .NET (and not just a Free Software implementation). The goals are to provide a reasonably compatible system and then improve on what Microsoft is offering."
.Net market, they can start innovating. There's certainly room to improve .Net, and with backwards-compatible free software there isn't much of a barrier to switching away from MS's version.
In other words, they're trying to embrace and extend DotNET. Once they get enough of the
I have been developinh java in Handheld and smart phone for the past 2 years and J2ME just rocks
J2ME is more mature
so now we've got a some free software that is causign MS to lose lots and lots of money (because maybe people will go with this rather then MS's SDK)...
I give this about 3 days before MS finds a way to shut it down...
Shipping charges + One Soul Male.
.NET SDK will work without VS.NET (then why can't this one).
Soul on delivery.
Dude, That's a single user EULA . And needs you to buy Visual Stuido.NET (~2000 USD) to use.
While the normal
j2ME has a childish UI library that assumes 1D screen with no layout. If your device is so limited, why even bother with applications? In every other area, the built in class library is severly crippled and you keep having to write classes yourself. And lack of native code/regular filesystem access? Argh!
Compact framework actually shares many of the same "features" but at least has native code and it's possible to write usable UI with heavy hacking. Now that Sun and MS are pals, Javasoft should just bite the bullet and release official, well working Personal Java for CE. Why should Zaurus have all the fun?
I love the dot net framework, but beware, only the C# language is free, not the .NET libraries. Because of that the Mono team wisely developed Gtk libraries besides the .NET port. I don't know if DotGnu has that, please enlighten me.
I'm getting some guys together to port Microsoft Money to Linux. We think its going to be a really interesting project and Microsoft will really love having their stuff ported for free! We don't think they'll care when we give it away for free either so we aren't asking for any patent releases or anything!
Who's with me?
There *aren't* any licensing fees for the Microsoft SDK's. I know, I use them all the time. I'm not really sure what the poster is talking about.
.NET costs $$$, but who needs that - they give you the compilers, libraries, and docs for free)
However, let's assume that I'm right - this has been bothering me for a while - since there's no licensing fees for the microsoft stuff, the Mono/DotGNU's aren't giving any competitive edge. They're not cheaper, and they are less complete and featureful.
It makes sense to me to make the virtual machine for linux platforms and whatnot, but why re-implement the framework(s)?
At any rate, the reason to use these (F)OSS offerings is not because of price! (Sure, Visual Studio
Hehe..:)
:)
.net CF applications FOR PocketPC (you already can do this for a long time) - it allows to write them ON PocketPC, I ported only C# compiler and tools.
Who writes these news?
"The Pocket PC# group".. Author of this port is me, Vitaliy Pronkin.. I'll think about changing my name to "Pocket PC# group"
More.. This port doesn't allow you to write
Regards,
Vitaliy Pronkin
pub-at-mifki.ru
Developing for PocketPC is an absolutely free experience, and has been for some years now. You could for a long time download the eMbedded toolkits (C++ and VB) and develop, even without a device since it comes with an emulator, and deploy for nothing. The only cost, and I don't think it's fair to count this, is the cost of the OS and software on the DESKTOP, since the free PPC tools don't run on anything other than Windows.
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
+4, Funny. Absolutely.
Have you ever try to "really" use Java3D?
You make let say 3 tabs with some Java3D/OpenGL context.
You draw something on the first tab, it eats up 256MB let say, because lots of polygons are drawn...
You open another tabs, you try to free the previous one...
Java crash "Out of memory" if you didn't edicated like 512MB of memory on the command line...
Let say you kill both tabs and create a new context... you're now at 768MB !
The problem with Java is simple a stupid Garbage Collector...
The problem is that there is no way of saying you know all this "context" delete it now... like in C/C++.
So, yes, it works, but yes they are big limitation on it...
That's pretty much personal preference. I don't think you get many in either community claiming the other's language is outright bad (particularly not since there are lisp implementations of haskell and vice-versa...)
This is how they created a near monopoly in both the desktop operating system and office software markets. Do you want this to continue to development platforms, or do you want open standards based development that isn't controlled by a single company?
Open Standards Portal
Related info:
www.iPaqLinux.com
The compact framework has no licensing issues other then it's not open source. This is a pointless waste of time.
Gorkman
Once again a question is modded flamebait. Why? Are you that sensitive? (Please, for once, give a proper answer instead of doing the slashdot variant of punching me in the face, which unfair moderation is).
First to the guy who says I am a non-coder - why would I have been a Unix in 1983 as a non-coder ? Besides, as a total non-coder I would have found getting my Ph.D in computer science a bit challenging.
/proc and loadable kernel modules and Berkeley Unix did not - frankly, operating systems technology must have been stalled if that is all the progress we got in 20 years. Even Multics had multi-processor support, and it came before Unix!
To the guy who called me an idiot because Linux has
To the reasonable parent of the present reply - I bemoan the fact that all the open-source programmer time goes on cloning - even if the clones are important bricks. Sooner or later Microsoft and friends will buy enough congresscritters to make cloning illegal - what then ?
And yes, I am still using a text editor most of the time, and a C compiler occasionnaly. This is what computer "scientists" do. This is where basic algorithms come from - thought and a small amount of programming. Think of me as the guy who develops the raw material for those important bricks. And I stopped using emacs, it's too complicated for my needs.
This is not a signature.
Apps huh? You did enough searching? There's a lot of free apps out there. You just have to do a little googling:
vxUtil, a networking took and several caluclators
HP Mobile Printing 2.0 for printing from your ppc
Wisbar Advanced, a task switcher
PocketPCsoft.net has a TON of freeware
Next time before deriding it and saying it's all pay ware, try doing a google search.
Gorkman
To the guy who called me an idiot because Linux has /proc and loadable kernel modules and Berkeley Unix did not - frankly, operating systems technology must have been stalled if that is all the progress we got in 20 years.
They were EXAMPLES, not an exhaustive list! Geez. The amount of stuff that wasn't around in 1983 in linux alone, let alone more innovative open source OSes (e.g. EROS, HURD) would, and has, filled several chunky textbooks.
Frankly, you're still an idiot.
...and USB and SCSI and gigabit Ethernet and commodity SMP and IPv6 and...
Parent^2 was probably a troll, or maybe just ignorant, but in case anybody agrees, consider this:
If you ever take a look at the various visualization projects that show the breakdown of the Linux kernel, like this one, what you'll find is that a huge amount of code is dedicated to things that didn't even exist in 1983, and probably not in 1993 either. Most of them are hardware drivers and filesystems and networking standards that get built as modules, so you wouldn't necessarily care that there's IRDA or HFS or MIPS support, but it's there.
Keep an eye on handhelds.org
This will open you up to 10,000 free software packages.
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.