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."

Comments

Patent s

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Cost of Compact Framework?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Clickage..

[hot_Karls_bad_cavern]

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.

it is about being "free"

[dekeji]

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.

Re:it is about being "free"

[Decaff]

I suspect it's not up to Java levels yet.

You are right - its no where near, and will never be until, like Java, all aspects of .Net are under multi-organisation control and available for hundreds of platforms.

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.

You seem to have little or understanding of how Java is developed. Java is controlled by the Java Community Process (JCP). Changes to Java are submitted to the process and voted on. There are no lawyers and no disproportionate benefit. (For example, some major new technologies for Java have been approved in spite of objections from companies as large as IBM and Oracle). If you personally want to suggest an extension to java formally, join the JCP - its free for individuals.

Of course, anyone can add non-core extensions to Java (and thousands do) if you use your own namespace. It would be pretty stupid if you could ship Java with your own personal version of java.util.Date that was incompatible. You are totally free to ship my.org.Date.

DotGNU has a Java Compiler too

[Gopal.V]

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)

Does this mean more free apps for the pocket PC?

[xot]

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.

Re:DotGNU isn't just a clone

[Decaff]

"DotGNU will be a complete replacement for .NET.."

I seriously doubt this. For example, where are the enterprise libraries of .Net? I can't see them on the DotGNU website, and Mono state clearly they have no plans to implement them for now.

This is what seriously worries me. There is nothing to stop Microsoft from continually adding (or pre-announcing) new extensions to their .Net and forcing DotGNU and Mono to keep playing catch-up. Microsoft are in a hugely powerful position to control other .Net implementations by changing things arbitrarily.

Collaborative systems like Java and parrot involve discussions amongst many organisations and people about what extensions and libraries are to be added.

Re:Take a lesson from IBM, Novell

[Decaff]

There was no need to broaden the search.

The number of COBOL and FORTRAN .NET jobs is virtually non-existent on job search engines.

Visual Basic.Net job ads occur with frequency about 1/3 of C# jobs.

The plain fact is that .Net still has not had a huge impact in the commercial coding environment.

Re:Yet another clone from the OS world

[ehack]

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.

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. Even Multics had multi-processor support, and it came before Unix!

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.