Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DotGNU Ported to PocketPC

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the little-yellow-different dept.

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."

8 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. Yet again Open Source plays catch-up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    When will we start to see some innovation from the open source world instead of the constant attempt to copy everything Micro$oft does?

    1. Re:Yet again Open Source plays catch-up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      What are you talking about? This is slashdot. There's no room for intelligent debate here.

  2. Will anyone notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Who will use it? Who wants slow, ported from who knows where running on a slow, ported from who knows where machine?

  3. OpenSource by FunkyELF · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Man, this is the reason I love open source software. It has always amazed me at how fast these hackers make keygens and cracks for liscensed programs. But open source is even better. Its saying we're not gonna stand for this crap and we'll copy what you have and make a better free version of it, from compilers to operating systems. Long live Open Source

    1. Re:OpenSource by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      To copy is great if it's Open Source, when Microsoft and other companies do the same, it's wrong. Did I understand that correctly?

  4. Re:Patent s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    "doesnt it strike anyone as odd that i have to pay MS to make their product successful"

    Can you point us to ANYTHING you've done -- on your own -- that would lead anyone to believe you are capable of doing that? S'kiddies are l337 in their own minds.

  5. Re:Take a lesson from IBM, Novell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    We tired .net, then we discovered PH-fucking-P, we saw a 1000% increase in performance and a 400% increase in programmer productivity for our web apps. Lesson: If you've got a simple web app, you don't need java or .net, you just need php.

  6. Re:Patent s by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Pantents? Patents? We don't need no stinking patents!

    Hey, I also thought we don't need no stinking proprietary operating systems. What the hell is a GNU anything doing on a Microsoft OS? Isn't that, like, illegal or against the GPL or something? What's the next GNU story, "Stallman buys SOAP"?

    --
    If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.