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

Yet again Open Source plays catch-up.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Yet again Open Source plays catch-up.

[Anonymous Coward]

haha, moderation system should not be used instead of proper arguments.

Re:Yet again Open Source plays catch-up.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Yet again Open Source plays catch-up.

[aussie_a]

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.

Re:Yet again Open Source plays catch-up.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then create a login/sign in, post what you think

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.

Will anyone notice?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Good News!

[CommanderData]

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!

Re:Good News!

[Anonymous Coward]

You will NOT do a game in this. No way. No how. Hangman maybe but even that would be slow.

Re:Good News!

[Anonymous Coward]

Good News!

It's a suppository?

Re:Good News!

[Anonymous Coward]

Erm, yeah right. Not all games are speed intensive.

Re:Good News!

[CommanderData]

You'd be suprised at the types of games you could make. You don't need to run the latest Quake or Unreal 3D engine to make a game entertaining. I know the CLR adds another layer of abstraction, but I also know that the 2D graphics and bitblt routines contained in the CLR are usually optimized to run on the hardware provided.

DotGNU may not be there yet, but don't discount the power of the newer handhelds out there, which are now reaching speeds of 500mhz. No doubt faster than the hardware some people are using to read this post!

Re:Good News!

[CommanderData]

I didn't have Professor Farnsworth in mind when I typed the headline, but your response gave me a good laugh anyway!

Re:Good News!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is insightful?

Re:Good News!

[AKAImBatman]

Good News! This is great for people looking to develop on handhelds and smartphones such as myself.

Is it? They haven't even finished the bleeding platform, and they're already spreading it thin. Focus, people, focus!

Re:Good News!

[arkanes]

I can't speak to DotGNU, but the CompactFramework is _not_ optimized for speed, at least when it comes to graphics. The bitmap object is especially bad - on a 400mhz strongarm, a simple transform (to rotate a bitmap to landscape) took roughly 10 seconds to render. Per pixel bitmap access is _slow_ in the compact framework. You can wrap up the GAPI (which basically just gives you an addressable framebuffer) in .NET calls, but all the work is done by C then.

Also, the Compact Framework is NOT heavily licensed. It ships with VS 2003, and while thats espensive (a couple grand, I think) there's no special licensing besides the money.

OpenSource

[FunkyELF]

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

Re:OpenSource

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:OpenSource

[Tranzig]

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.

Re:OpenSource

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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.

Re:OpenSource

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:OpenSource

[Tranzig]

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.

Re:OpenSource

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:OpenSource

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

Re:OpenSource

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:OpenSource

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

c# is teh schizzle

[Anonymous Coward]

C# is superior in every respect to Java, including 1.5.

I'm really hoping Gnome chooses c# as their new development language. Havoc Pennington is a fawking genius.

Re:c# is teh schizzle

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok I didn't write the above post, but how is it flamebait?

Re:c# is teh schizzle

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have an answer, give it to me instead of modding me down for asking questions.

Re:c# is teh schizzle

[fasura]

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.

Re:c# is teh schizzle

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:c# is teh schizzle

[Anonymous Coward]

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 !!

Re:c# is teh schizzle

[BarryNorton]

Lisp?!? Haskell!

Re:c# is teh schizzle

[Anonymous Coward]

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...)

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

Re:Patent s

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Patent s

[Anonymous Coward]

Portable.net : Southern Storm Australia .

Re:Patent s

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderators, please stop modding up the patent trolls that pop up in every single DotGNU and Mono discussion!

This story has nothing to do with patents, therefore the patent issue is Offtopic here. The parent is also probably a Troll, so that would be another appropriate moderation. Since the "patent issue" has been discussed to death, Interesting is the one moderation option that is least appropriate to an anonymous coward bringing it up yet again.

Re:Patent s

[Rick the Red]

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"?

Take a lesson from IBM, Novell

[RoundSparrow]

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?

Re:Take a lesson from IBM, Novell

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got some numbers for you.

We have been working on switching our old Win32 based client-server application to a web based model. We started with Java and IBM Websphere.

It just wouldn't perform. Unacceptably slow.

Then we discovered .NET. We saw a 900% increase in performance almost immediately.

Now we've grown our market share by over 20% - all thanks to our new architecture and .NET.

Re:Take a lesson from IBM, Novell

[AaronLawrence]

Is that meant to sound like a sales pitch? Cause it does. Nice astroturfing.

Re:Take a lesson from IBM, Novell

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Take a lesson from IBM, Novell

[Decaff]

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?

Yes. This is nonsense.

As far as I can see on most USA job searches new C# jobs count for less than 1/3 the number of new Java jobs. In non-USA job markets (where there is usually a stronger desire to be independent from Microsoft) the ratio seems to be about 10 java jobs for every C# job.

The phrase you should have used is 'has a lot less users'.

Re:Take a lesson from IBM, Novell

[GoldMace]

Can all search engines handle C#?

Quite a number of them can't handle C++. Java is much easier thing to search for, though you sometimes find things related to coffee.

Re:Take a lesson from IBM, Novell

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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 don't have any numbers about the size of the current .NET and Java developers population, but we can be reasonably sure that .NET will overtake Java in a few months to one year.

Netcraft had this to say in March: "ASP.NET Overtakes JSP and Java Servlets"
[http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004 /03/23/aspn et_overtakes_jsp_and_java_servlets.html]

And Forrester research found that 56% of enterprises surveyed will be using the .NET Framework as their primary development environment in 2005 [compared with 44% J2EE].
[http://www.forrester.com/Research/Documen t/Excerp t/0,7211,34266,00.html].

Re:Take a lesson from IBM, Novell

[Decaff]

Quite a number of them can't handle C++. Java is much easier thing to search for

Job search engines are designed for this: Imagine a job search that could not cope with C++!!

Re:Take a lesson from IBM, Novell

[tshak]

You need to broaden search for .NET, not C#. A lot of .NET jobs are VB.NET, and a small percentage account for COBOL and FORTRAN .NET as well (a lot of mainframe migration projects use those languages).

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:Take a lesson from IBM, Novell

[GoldMace]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. I have seen job search engines that can't cope with C++. Now that I think about it, C# might not have quite as many problems as C++. One problem with C++, is that some search engines use the +'s to mean AND, and give either an error message or just give results for C.

Re:Take a lesson from IBM, Novell

[Decaff]

Well, in this case I was using job search engines that could cope with C++.

This is a silly argument. If the search engines could not cope with 'C#' I would not have found anything at all. Instead I found thousands of clearly labelled C# jobs. On the same search engines I found vastly more C++ jobs, but still nowhere near the number of Java jobs.

The conclusion is unavoidable: .Net has barely made an impact on C++ jobs, let alone Java. (I realise that managed C++ can be used in .Net, but there is almost not demand for that).

Re:Take a lesson from IBM, Novell

[Anonymous Coward]

> If the search engines could not cope with 'C#' I would not have found anything at all.

He excluded the search engines which could not handle special characters easily -- you idiot!

So the result-set is biased, towards java.

Re:Take a lesson from IBM, Novell

[Decaff]

He excluded the search engines which could not handle special characters easily -- you idiot!

So the result-set is biased, towards java.

Read this carefully, and I'll explain.

As a scientist, I understand the need for good sampling and bias. Therefore, I did not use job search engines which had a problem with C++ or C#.
It would have been statistical nonsense to include any search results for which C# or C++ showed zero.

So, all the job search engines I used showed thousands of C++ and C# jobs. Unless you believe that these search engines either randomly or selectively block a fixed proportion of pages with C++ or C# on, its very hard to see why there should be a bias. The idea of a bias is extremely hard to understand - after all, why would job search engines designed for use by IT people selectively exclude some jobs?

If you don't believe me, all you have to do is do a little research. Look at published reports on the Job market.

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?

Re:Cost of Compact Framework?

[leerpm]

The runtime is still free as far as I know. But it is not the same as the SDK for it.

Re:Cost of Compact Framework?

[Utopia]

I never heard of anyone paying for the SDK either.

Re:Cost of Compact Framework?

[michael.creasy]

Lack of research.
Windows Mobile Developer Resrource Kit All the SDKs on DVD/CD. I clicked through to order and the price of the kit was $0.00

Re:Cost of Compact Framework?

[Aphrika]

The problem is that there's no SDK for the .NET CF 1.0, meaning you have to develop for it in Visual Studio 2003.

However, the reason is that they ran out of time, evidently a whole different kettle of fish from 'heavy licensing requirements' that's touted in the story. That's basically FUD.

So without an SDK, the only licensing requirement you have to satisfy to develop for it is a Visual Studio.NET 2003 license, there is no licensing attached to the runtimes. However, an SDK is pencilled in for the .NET CF 2.0 release.

Re:Cost of Compact Framework?

[SailFly]

Not quite...

Subtotal: $0.00
Shipping and Handling: $5.50
Estimated Tax: $0.39
Total: $5.89 (USD)

Re:Cost of Compact Framework?

[Shaklee39]

Or you can download it for free

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.

Re:Clickage..

[KingOfBLASH]

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win"

--Gandhi

It's flaimbait because

[aussie_a]

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.

Re:It's flaimbait because

[dekeji]

people do not agree with the statement, and it is a touchy subject (for some) and is therefore flaimbait.

Let's call a spade a spade: people who are heavily personally invested in some platform and fear for its long-term viability get really zealous about it. On Slashdot, that shows up as a reflex to moderate down anything that state preferences, problems, or issues that may go against that platform. And these people firmly believe that they are right: it's a kind of group think.

There isn't much that can be done about it, it's just a fact of life. People do the same thing in the real world.

You may notice that, while debate between Linux, Windows, and X11 users may get heated, they generally don't mod each other down that much. While those users may dislike each others platforms and vehemently disagree, they are secure enough about the future of their platform that they don't have to resort to suppressing statements they don't like.

Yet another clone from the OS world

[ehack]

We had a clone (gcc) of the proprietary (Bell Labs) C language, a clone (Linux) of the proprietary (Bell) Unix system.

Now the leading OS of the day is this lousy Microsoft stuff, and Open Source developers are "giving" us clones of the horrible Microsoft software.

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.

And yes, I know you will class this as a troll, but frankly as a beta-tester of Berkeley Unix back in 1983 I got exactly the same functionality then as I get from Linix now. Your moderation will not make this sad truth go away.

Edmund

Re:Yet another clone from the OS world

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like what you're saying. I have absolutely no counter-arguments, so next time I have modpoints, watch out!

Re:Yet another clone from the OS world

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I remember how 1983 unix had loadable kernel modules, a /proc filesystem, Video4Linux APIs and hotplug device detection. Idiot.

Re:Yet another clone from the OS world

[kfg]

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

Re:Yet another clone from the OS world

[ites]

C is an ANSI standard language and has been implemented by hundreds of groups and companies, including all the major OS vendors.

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 .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.

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...

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.

Re:Yet another clone from the OS world

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Yet another clone from the OS world

[JamieF]

...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.

How long...

[JessLeah]

...before the Nastygram(TM) from MS's lawyer corps arrives?

Re:How long...

[deadlinegrunt]

...before the Nastygram(TM) from MS's lawyer corps arrives?

Probably not long at all. My understanding is the Microsoft can port a legal offense to different platforms cheaper, faster, and more robust than any of their code base or innovative technologies.

Re:How long...

[Anonymous Coward]

So this isn't flamebait... Ah, it's so interesting to study the primitive moderators in their natural habitat... a habitat they never seem to leave.

Some screenshots

[Simon (S2)]

here, here, here and here.

Re:Some screenshots

[Gopal.V]

Even prettier :)

A Dcop Component Tree in WinForms , An HTML Renderer (compona.com not open yet) A PieChart control A simple IDE ...

and much much more (I don't want that box totally slashdotted) !!!

Re:Some screenshots

[Anonymous Coward]

Aaarrggghhhh!!!

Nasty Windows L&F migrating to other platforms?!?

I prefer Swing's switchable L&F, or SWT's native approach - anything but ugly Windows widgets migrating to other platforms!

Shame on .Gnu!

(Plus. I'm pretty sure MS will go after WinForms on other platforms...)

Lend a hand :)

[Gopal.V]

DotGNU has about 5-6 developers working on everything :)... lend a hand ...

Re:Lend a hand :)

[hot_Karls_bad_cavern]

" DotGNU has about 5-6 developers working on everything :)... lend a hand ..."

You know, i just might. i've recently graduated with a computer engineering degree and am rather enjoying my evenings to myself, but have been thinking of which, if not my own, open source project i would like to give some time to. i've used the work of thousands over the short time i've used linux, i figure, i'd be my right place to give something back. So, today i'll look into the DotGNU and see if that's where i'd like to put my time. Thanks!

Re:Lend a hand :)

[Gopal.V]

visit irc.freenode.net #dotgnu ... talk to t3rmin4t0r

**Disclaimer**
I'm a recent CS graduate who has been working on DotGNU for the last 3 years (yes, three years this August).

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"

[RoundSparrow]

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.


Oh, lawyers will get involved :) Patents and stuff will be the next area of dotNet portability. Microsoft so far has let it slide, but is that because law is slow or because they intend to let it go?

I'm glad that dotGNU / Mono / Portable.net are out there - this is the best hope for the future of having true competition against Microsoft.

Cloning an API / programming langauge is one area that Microsoft seems mixed on. Didn't they start to challenge Samba? But WINE has gone untouched? Good to see we are fighting the good fight.

Re:it is about being "free"

[dekeji]

Oh, lawyers will get involved :) Patents and stuff will be the next area of dotNet portability. Microsoft so far has let it slide, but is that because law is slow or because they intend to let it go?

Because of the large amount of fear of Microsoft that exists, this has been extensively examined by lots of people, including the Mono developers and their lawyers, and the conclusion seems to be that Microsoft simply does not have any patents that generally read on these kinds of implementations. So, the answer is: it's neither of the two choices you give.

Furthermore, Microsoft has publicly stated that it is their intention that people can implement ECMA C# (which includes a lot of .NET libraries) freely.

Cloning an API / programming langauge is one area that Microsoft seems mixed on. Didn't they start to challenge Samba? But WINE has gone untouched? Good to see we are fighting the good fight.

I wouldn't put it in such dramatic or general terms. I don't know what Microsoft did with Samba, but each such issue needs to be taken on a case by case basis. And even in cases where a company like Microsoft has a valid patent claim, people can almost always work around it (you may notice that Samba is still here).

C# is simply a decent language and runtime that has an open standard and has received extensive legal scrutiny. Using it for some philosophical reason would be the wrong motivation.

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.

Re:it is about being "free"

[alext]

this has been extensively examined by lots of people, including the Mono developers and their lawyers

Did they ask Steve Ballmer?

Here's what he said in 2002:

Responding to questions about the opening-up of the .NET framework, Ballmer announced that there would certainly be a "Common Language Runtime Implementation" for Unix, but then explained that this development would be limited to a subset, which was "intended only for academic use". Ballmer rejected speculations about support for free .NET implementationens such as Mono: "We have invested so many millions in .NET, we have so many patents on .NET, which we want to cultivate."

As for the lame "standards" pitch

Microsoft has publicly stated that it is their intention that people can implement ECMA C# (which includes a lot of .NET libraries) freely.

this statement has been repeated and immediately refuted so often on /. one really has to question the motives of someone still making it.

For the record, Dotnet consists of approximately 1200 APIs (classes) of which 120 were "standardized" as part of C Sharp and the CLR. Not by any stretch of the imagination can Dotnet constitute a standardized platform.

Re:it is about being "free"

[Anonymous Coward]

> Java is controlled by the Java Community Process (JCP).

A bureacracy controlled by Sun.

> Changes to Java are submitted to the process and voted on

Over which Sun has absolute veto power.

Re:it is about being "free"

[dekeji]

Did they ask Steve Ballmer? Here's what he said in 2002:

We don't have to guess what patents or patent applications Microsoft had in 2002 because they are public by now; that is exactly what the Mono lawyers looked at. And when you look at that set of patents and patent applications, you'll see that Ballmer was either wrong or lying.

So, in light of the fact that this is an issue that has a clear answer, why do people like you keep talking about non-existent patents threatening open source C# efforts? What is your agenda?

For the record, Dotnet consists of approximately 1200 APIs (classes) of which 120 were "standardized" as part of C Sharp and the CLR. Not by any stretch of the imagination can Dotnet constitute a standardized platform.

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I didn't claim that "Dotnet" was a "standardized platform"--it clearly hasn't been standardized. I said that "C# is simply a decent language and runtime that has an open standard and has received extensive legal scrutiny." C# is not .NET.

(In fact, I expect most open source work in C# won't use anything other than ECMA C# plus bindings to open source libraries like Gnome--.NET is irrelevant to most non-Windows developers.)

this statement has been repeated and immediately refuted so often on /. one really has to question the motives of someone still making it

The statement has not been "refuted"; Microsoft representatives have, at times, stated that as Microsoft's intent. Maybe Microsoft is lying or maybe they are confused or maybe they will change, but those are always possibilities with any company. But, as I was saying, legally, it doesn't matter whether what they said is what they intended because, by now, all the relevant intellectual property is out in the open. What they said is just another "FYI".

Re:it is about being "free"

[Decaff]

A bureacracy controlled by Sun.

Nonsense. If that were the case, Sun's competitors would not have joined.

Over which Sun has absolute veto power.

Well they invented the damn language!

So you prefer .Net where the whole thing is specified and extended by Microsoft? That is a perverse attitude.

Re:it is about being "free"

[dekeji]

You are right - its no where near, and will never be until, like Java, all aspects of .Net

That will (thankfully) never be the case, since C#/.NET isn't trying to be like Java. Unlike Java, C# developers are not yoked to a cross-platform philosophy. Just like C++, C# is used with different kinds of frameworks and libraries, many of them platform specific. And, hard as that may be for you to comprehend, many people want that.

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.

The fact that Sun, rather than an independent body, actually owns many (all?) of the JCP documents alone proves you wrong (check the copyright notices). Sun also controls the determination of whether third party implementations conform to the specfications or not. And Sun holds many patents that are necessary to practice implementations of the JCP.

Furthermore, even if those legal obstacles didn't exist, since all implementations of the Java platform rely on code licensed from Sun, Sun is ultimately the primary beneficiary of any enhancements to Java; there are no independent third party implementations of the Java platform.

Basically, the notion that the JCP is an open or independent process is laughable.

Re:it is about being "free"

[Decaff]

That will (thankfully) never be the case, since C#/.NET isn't trying to be like Java. Unlike Java, C# developers are not yoked to a cross-platform philosophy.

So cross-platform is some kind of disadvantage? Perhaps you had better explain that to Perl, C++ and Python developers.

Just like C++, C# is used with different kinds of frameworks and libraries, many of them platform specific. And, hard as that may be for you to comprehend, many people want that.

Yes, that is why Java is so successful, as thousands of Java apps can and do use platform specific code: Eclipse is one example. There is nothing to stop you writing or using platform specific and native code libraries.

since all implementations of the Java platform rely on code licensed from Sun,

The HP VM is clean room, and uses no Sun code, as is Kaffe, and Taurus, and Japhar, and GCC.

Basically, the notion that the JCP is an open or independent process is laughable.

As if companies such as Oracle, IBM and HP, who are major competitors of Sun would join a process which was not independent and open.

But I guess you know better than them.

Re:it is about being "free"

[alext]

1) Which "Mono lawyers" and what review are you referring to? Have these findings been made public? If not, on whose authority are you asserting that Dotnet is unthreatened by patents? And which of MS's patents have they told you they regard as Dotnet related? It seems to me rather cavalier to assume that MS will not use expensively acquired patents to protect their core platform, especially as Ballmer is on record as saying that it is precisely their intention to do so.

2) No you didn't say that Dotnet was a standardized platform, you implied it by stating that C Sharp "includes a lot of .NET libraries". Be aware that Mono proponents have a lot of "previous" regarding this particular bait-and-switch manoeuvre so anyone still trying it on is likely to be quickly "apprehended".

3) I have no idea what reassurance we're supposed to find from the statement that all MS IP is "out in the open". Are you implying that it is now somehow in the public domain?

Re:it is about being "free"

[dekeji]

So cross-platform is some kind of disadvantage?

Yes: it leads to the kind of lousy user interfaces and poor platform integration people produce in Swing/Java.

Perhaps you had better explain that to Perl, C++ and Python developers.

Those are all languages with lots of popular, platform-specific libraries.

The HP VM is clean room, and uses no Sun code, as is Kaffe, and Taurus, and Japhar, and GCC.

Stop the bullshitting. You know full well that a JVM by itself is useless. You know full well that none of the independent implementations have ever passed certification as implementations of the standard-edition Java 2 platform. Dragging up that a tiny bit of the Java platform has been implemented independently when I explicitly talked about independent implementations of the Java platform is highly disingenuous of you.

As if companies such as Oracle, IBM and HP, who are major competitors of Sun would join a process which was not independent and open.

Those companies made a commitment to supporting Java long before Sun created the current mess, when Sun was still pretending that Java was going to be submitted to an independent standards body; those companies can't easily go back on that commitment at this point, given how much their customers have invested in it. And for IBM to start projects like Eclipse (!), SWT, and to get into a public argument with Sun about open sourcing the platform is a slap in the face for Sun.

Re:it is about being "free"

[dekeji]

Yes, that is why Java is so successful, as thousands of Java apps can and do use platform specific code: Eclipse is one example.

Eclipse is an attempt by IBM to fight Sun's cross-platform idiocy, an attempt that Sun soundly condemns.

And, no, that's not why Java has achieved the modest success it has. Java became successful because it looked like the only viable response to Microsoft, but those days are over. Java is living on borrowed time.

There is nothing to stop you writing or using platform specific and native code libraries.

There are plenty of things that stop me, like a braindead, cumbersome, and inefficient JNI interface and lack of pre-existing platform-specific bindings included in the Java distribution.

C#, in contrast, gives me native Windows and Gnome bindings on the respective platforms and much easier and much more efficient use of native code and native data.

Re:it is about being "free"

[dekeji]

Which "Mono lawyers" and what review are you referring to? Have these findings been made public?

The Mono project is public. If you participated or at least followed it, instead of badmouthing the project from a state of ignorance, you'd know the status of the review (and, no, the review isn't complete, but they haven't come up with anything related to ECMA C#).

If not, on whose authority are you asserting that Dotnet is unthreatened by patents?

You seem to have trouble distinguishing authoritative legal opinions and general discussions. If you want a legal opinion, go pay for it.

And I never asserted that "Dotnet" (whatever you may be referring to) is "unthreatened by patents" anyway. I made a statement specifically about ECMA C# and Microsoft patents. The relationship between ECMA C# and Microsoft's patent portfolio has probably been looked into in more detail than any other platform, and nobody has found a smoking gun.

No you didn't say that Dotnet was a standardized platform, you implied it by stating that C Sharp "includes a lot of .NET libraries".

That's an idiotic inference by you. What is standardized about C# is obviously ECMA C#. I neither stated nor implied anything more.

Be aware that Mono proponents have a lot of "previous" regarding this particular bait-and-switch manoeuvre so anyone still trying it on is likely to be quickly "apprehended".

There is no "bait and switch". The Mono project does three things: it is developing an ECMA C# implementation, it is developing a .NET implementation, and it is developing a completely independent stack of open source libraries and bindings. You can use whichever parts you like. Most OSS developers seem to steer clear of the .NET clone, if not for any other reason than because the Gnome APIs are simply better.

3) I have no idea what reassurance we're supposed to find from the statement that all MS IP is "out in the open". Are you implying that it is now somehow in the public domain?

No, I am stating that patents and patent applications are published by the USPTO. Therefore, we don't have to guess what patents Microsoft held or had applied for in 2002, we can just look.

It seems to me rather cavalier to assume that MS will not use expensively acquired patents to protect their core platform, especially as Ballmer is on record as saying that it is precisely their intention to do so.

There is no "assumption" there, there simply are no such patents.

Re:it is about being "free"

[Decaff]

Yes: it leads to the kind of lousy user interfaces and poor platform integration people produce in Swing/Java.

Then don't use Swing. Most java developers don't. They use features of Java that are exceptionally well integrated with platforms such as multithreading and JIT compiling. If you want a more integrated GUI, use SWT or BISS-AWT, or Java-GTK.

Dragging up that a tiny bit of the Java platform has been implemented independently when I explicitly talked about independent implementations of the Java platform is highly disingenuous of you.

You are the the first person who I have encountered who is willing to call the JVM a 'tiny bit of the Java platform', considering the huge investment of time and money that major companies have invested in it.

Stop the bullshitting. You know full well that a JVM by itself is useless. You know full well that none of the independent implementations have ever passed certification as implementations of the standard-edition Java 2 platform.

Simply refuting your points is a strange definition of 'bullshitting'.

You said that all implementations required Sun's code. You said nothing about certification. HPs Java has been certificated.

All certification means is that the implementation can use the name 'Java'.

Anyone can slap together a compiler and call it 'C#' - there is no guarantee of core library compatibility.

Those companies made a commitment to supporting Java long before Sun created the current mess, when Sun was still pretending that Java was going to be submitted to an independent standards body.

What 'mess'?

Sun was pretending nothing. If they had not been protective about Java, maintaining standards and compatibility in the face of huge pressure from companies like Microsoft who wished to fragment the market, Java would not be by far the dominant programming language.

A bit of advice - calm down; relax. If you don't like Java, don't use it. Getting heated up about this will neither convince me about your argument, or remove Java from the face of the planet!

Re:it is about being "free"

[Decaff]

And, no, that's not why Java has achieved the modest success it has.

Strange use of the word modest. I guess you mean it like 'Microsoft Windows has been a modest success on the desktop'.

Java became successful because it looked like the only viable response to Microsoft, but those days are over. Java is living on borrowed time.

A statement that is in complete contrast to the evidence. Java is not only by far the most popular development language, but its use is growing. You must know this, if you keep up with the IT industry press and websites.

C#, in contrast, gives me native Windows and Gnome bindings on the respective platforms and much easier and much more efficient use of native code and native data.

You can get native Windows and Gnome bindings with Java too, using SWT.

As for more efficiency, you are just making that up: there is no evidence for it. Good Linux JVMs such as IBM's run equivalent code faster than C++, and so much faster than C#. I think you should check your facts, or at least download some Java VMs and run benchmarks, rather than quote second-hand wishful-thinking statements.

Re:it is about being "free"

[alext]

The Mono project is public. If you participated or at least followed it...

Fortunately I have better things to do than participate in the mindless cloning of products merely to extend Microsoft's mindshare in the development community.

I take the above as confirmation that there is in fact no such legal opinion available able to offer any assurance on the patent question and that this "advice" is therefore just more arm-waving.

If you want a legal opinion, go pay for it.

I guess you offer the same advice to all prospective users of "your" platform?

What is standardized about C# is obviously ECMA C#. I neither stated nor implied anything more.

Your complete sentence is as follows:

Furthermore, Microsoft has publicly stated that it is their intention that people can implement ECMA C# (which includes a lot of .NET libraries) freely.

So you do make a coy little promise of free Dotnet. But of course you had to - after all the platform would offer virtually zero portablity without the main libraries, right? Wonder if we'll ever see the day when a Mono proponent comes clean and makes a clear distinction between language and libraries.

Regarding Dotnet patents:

There is no "assumption" there, there simply are no such patents.

Really? Then you'll be updating this section of the Mono FAQ soon then:

The controversial elements are the ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows.Forms subsets. [...] The Mono strategy for dealing with these technologies is as follows: (1) work around the patent by using a different implementation technique that retains the API, but changes the mechanism; if that is not possible, we would (2) remove the pieces of code that were covered by those patents, and also (3) find prior art that would render the patent useless. Not providing a patented capability would weaken the interoperability, but it would still provide the free software / open source software community with good development tools, which is the primary reason for developing Mono. The patents do not apply in countries where software patents are not allowed.

Re:it is about being "free"

[dekeji]

Fortunately I have better things to do than participate in the mindless cloning of products merely to extend Microsoft's mindshare in the development community.

Mono isn't "mindless cloning", since the most important part of it is the development of a fully open source set of C# APIs--a better set of APIs than either .NET or Java provide.

[If you want a legal opinion, go pay for it.] I guess you offer the same advice to all prospective users of "your" platform?

I give the same advice to anybody who wants a well-founded legal opinion.

In fact, if you are a Java user, I strongly recommend you get a well-founded legal opinion about the Java licenses, since Java is heavily patent and IP encumbered. If you are worried about Microsoft suing independent implementors of ECMA C#, go ask your lawyer about the possibility of Sun suing independent implementors of Java and the (I claim) non-existent protection and guarantees such implementors have from Sun.

[Furthermore, Microsoft has publicly stated that it is their intention that people can implement ECMA C# (which includes a lot of .NET libraries) freely.] So you do make a coy little promise of free Dotnet.

And your point is what? ECMA C# is standardized. ECMA C# shares hundreds of classes with what Microsoft separately calls ".NET". Those statements are both correct. They don't imply that ".NET as a whole" is standardized.

But of course you had to - after all the platform would offer virtually zero portablity without the main libraries, right?

Wrong. The standard library included in ECMA C# is extensive and lets you write portable code if you choose. That level of portability is very useful for writing libraries that work across platforms. However, for applications, most developers choose to go beyond it.

You are still living under the misconception that people want cross-platform portability and that therefore mentioning .NET is some kind of attempt to trick people into getting some benefit that they don't get. But most people who use C# don't view cross-platform portability as a benefit; their (my) statement that Mono supports .NET (which it does) is just a statement of fact, not an inducement; I have made it clear that I actually think you shouldn't use those parts of .NET that go beyond ECMA C# and instead use the OSS-based libraries with C#.

Note that if you actually need cross-platform capabilities, both the .NET and the Gnome-based environments provide it: using Mono's .NET clone, you can run .NET applications on Linux, and using the Gnome port to Windows, you can run Gnome/C# applications on Windows, and both of those work at least as well as Swing (which is really a pretty shitty cross-platform library). Furthermore, there are C# bindings to wxWindows and Qt, which also let you write cross-platform applications. And there will doubtlessly be pure ECMA C# GUI toolkits analogous to Swing (although, hopefully, better designed). But all of those cross-platform capabilities are a side-show for Mono. Most C# applications will be developed using .NET libraries for Windows and using Gnome libraries for Linux, with no intent or desire to port them to other platforms.

Wonder if we'll ever see the day when a Mono proponent comes clean and makes a clear distinction between language and libraries.

That would be a useless distinction since nobody implements just the C# language. The important distinction is between ECMA C# (C# and its standard library), the .NET-specific APIs (all of Microsoft's published APIs minus what is in ECMA C#), and the Gnome/OSS-based Mono APIs. Of those, most OSS developers use ECMA C# and the Gnome/OSS-based Mono APIs. The Mono project is quite clear about this distinction.

Perhaps with your Java blinders, the di

Re:it is about being "free"

[Anonymous Coward]

Decaff, you have a horrible discussion style. At one stage you quote portability as one of java strenghts, while in the next stage you state that most people do not care about portability by not using the broken Swing implementation but native libraries, ignoring that these native libraries completely destroy your argument chain.

When people complain about this, you argue that "B must be true because of NOT A" so your statement is correct. Sorry, but all discussions with you are meritless and I would probably mod you down to 0 if I had a slashdot account.

> If you want a more integrated GUI, use SWT or BISS-AWT, or Java-GTK.

Not possible, unless you ship your product with the JNI sourcecode and with a C compiler. If you want that your java code runs on any platform, you cannot use these libraries.

The difference is that .NET _allows_ you to call native code. Something which is not _possible_ in java unless you ship your product with JNI C source code and ask your customer to compile the JNI C source with a C compiler. Brain damaged...

> [JVM is a] 'tiny bit of the Java platform'

Just look what the GCJ developers have to say about it. They cannot participate in the JCP and they are not allowed to implement certain features without the risc that sun pulls a SCO on them. They have clearly stated that Sun can stick their crappy library code into their ass,, they can write better code, but it would be good if java became a public standard like ECMA C#/.NET and that they have serious problems with Sun's license restrictions.

Furthermore, the proprietary java implementations you mentioned are based on Sun code, while the open implementations are indeed "clean room" implementations but the developers are not allowed to call these implementations JAVA, only a _complete_ certified implementation may be. This completely destroys the open-source process.

> Anyone can slap together a compiler and call it 'C#' - there is no guarantee of core library compatibility.

Correct. That's what we call _open_. And that's why we call Java proprietary. And that's the reason why Sun's Java will never ever become a major part of a open/free operating system.

EOT

> What 'mess'?

Sun's java. It's like building your house on quick sand, just like their public statements: "We will open-source it", "No we will not", "We don't know", "That must be decided on a higher level", "We don't want fragmentation (!) like other open-source projects" (!). Meanwhile 3 year old serious Swing bugs are still not fixed. What's worse, the latest 1.4 implementation has so serious bugs that vendors do not recommend it's use on certain operating systems. Die Sun's java, DIE!

Re:it is about being "free"

[Decaff]

OK, I give in. You have a wonderful discussion ability that makes me feel truly humble.

You have changed my mind. I wish to work with you to ensure that any idea of a standard compatible Java is thrown out. This will help the employment in the computing industry as huge numbers of new developers will need to be employed to cope with all the incompatible versions.

I now see that the GPL is the only way to go for everything, and we should not allow anyone a choice to do anything thing else. All software and hardware investions should be forced to use it, after all, when has the commercial motive helped anyone? Any company like Sun who comes up with an idea should be forced to have that idea taken away from them and given to the open sourcers.

As for Java, yes, let's all should 'Die Java', because a few of us shouting that is surely going to stop those millions of developers who use it.

I beg forgiveness for every having dared to disagree.

please be specific

[dekeji]

What legal basis would Microsoft's lawyers have to complain? C# and large parts of the libraries clearly are not Microsoft intellectual property.

Re:please be specific

[JessLeah]

Microsoft's legal basis to complain would be, basically, that they are Microsoft. Hardly any well-heeled (read: well-bribed) politician in the world could argue with that "logic".

Re:please be specific

[dekeji]

Microsoft's legal basis to complain would be, basically, that they are Microsoft.

Microsoft has engaged in all sorts of questionable business practices, but they have used the legal system to intimidate other companies comparatively rarely. Usually, Microsoft has been at the receiving end of such threats and lawsuits, for example from Apple or Sun.

So, going by their corporate history, Microsoft seems less likely to send legal nastygrams than other companies. The Microsoft way would be to change .NET incompatibly and make Portable .NET run poorly on PPC.

What is wrong with the current license?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone care to elaborate on why the .NET Compact Framework is so "bad" compared to the regular desktop .NET framework?

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 .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...

Re:What is wrong with the current license?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've heard that C# is like java but crap... on slashdot, I assume?

And everybody tells me Perl is great. I think it is the most awful syntax put together by an array of drunk monkeys on crack.

Mod parent down! Contains Goatse and Freinds

[anonymous coword]

Enough said.

C# suck

[Anonymous Coward]

I cant believe Slashdot would post this story. C# is a horrible terrible language. It is surely never going to be a great savior like JAVA. Plus it came from Micros$loth the evil empire, doesnt that rule it out completely anyway. MANLY PROGRAMMARS USE JAVA!

A dangerous idea

[Decaff]

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?

Re:A dangerous idea

[m1chael]

"provide free marketing for Microsoft"

So true! Look at this in the programming language itself: Windows.Forms.*!!!

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)

Re:DotGNU has a Java Compiler too

[Gopal.V]

For the adventurous , Java lib is included in that tarballs as javalib. Press make there and you'll have a very minimal java.lang.dll

Java to IL examples ...

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.

you got it backwards

[dekeji]

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.

That's completely backwards. C# (in the form of Mono and Portable .NET) represents open source here and Java represents the proprietary solution.

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.

Re:you got it backwards

[fasura]

That's completely backwards. C# (in the form of Mono and Portable .NET) represents open source here and Java represents the proprietary solution.

Correct and I missed that. However, C# is so MS tainted that people do forget it's an OS solution in this instance. But there is still a tendency to mod down anything which goes against the current /. groupthink.

People who advocate open source solutions are pragmatists--they simply are pragmatists with longer time horizons (and probably much more experience) than you.

Or at least they hope they're playing on a longer timescale. Apart from in the field of enterprise computing I don't think planning on a long term strat is that great and at the moment I use prop products simply because there is no adequate open source alternative. Also being someone who programs for a living and enjoys their time at home I'm not really inclined to help an OS project. Sad but true.

Re:you got it backwards

[dekeji]

However, C# is so MS tainted that people do forget it's an OS

Given that the posting said "I'm really hoping Gnome chooses c# as their new development language. Havoc Pennington is a fawking genius.", I think that's really implausible.

solution in this instance. But there is still a tendency to mod down anything which goes against the current /. groupthink.

There is no "group think" on Slashdot--there are too many groups. Individual groups may have "group think", but those groups that are most trigger happy with moderation don't belong to the OSS community, they belong to communities of threatened commercial platforms.

OSS advocates will generally not mod you down for saying that Windows does something better, they'll just tell you outright that they think that you are a moron and may proceed with some technical points to back up their claims.

Also being someone who programs for a living and enjoys their time at home I'm not really inclined to help an OS project.

You would help OSS projects simply by using them instead of buying the commercial stuff. And if you also send in the occasional bug report or feature request, you are a gold-level contributor.

Apart from in the field of enterprise computing I don't think planning on a long term strat is that great

It matters far more for desktop and home computing. You have to go out and buy new word processing software, new graphics software, etc. ever couple of years because you support companies that profit from (gratuitous) change--the same change that makes your life more difficult.

and at the moment I use prop products simply because there is no adequate open source alternative.

I frankly doubt that that's true. Maybe you don't know how to use the open source alternative and don't want to spend the time to change how you are working, but there is very little that can't be accomplished as efficiently or more efficiently with OSS than with proprietary software at this point.

Re:you got it backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

I've lived through 2 generations of operating systems and language, 4 infact - bbc b, amstrad cpc 128, windows 3.1, windows 95 and now XP. I'm still intrigued by people who argue that you should share the code that you and a team of 100 or so developers have spent 9-5, 5 days a week, for years on, can make business sense. Perhaps it's because the majority of open source projects don't have this amount of effort put into them, that this is forgotten. Although I'm sure the developers of the small projects also work on larger projects day to day, so I'm a bit lost as to the arguments.

The GPL license restricts anyone from using the source code unless they distribute their own source code, doesn't this just amount to Novell plagerising IBM's code and visa versa to save them man hours for doing the task themself? Please lay the arguments out, I'm interested.

Re:you got it backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

Things don't have to make business sense to get done - at least in the free world (and also in parts of america), sometimes people do stuff just because they want to. Software developed for the love of it, that's what a lot of OSS is. This is purely incomprehensible to a large proportion of the proprietary software development community, who are apparently quite literally "only in it for the money".

Re:you got it backwards

[dekeji]

I'm still intrigued by people who argue that you should share the code that you and a team of 100 or so developers have spent 9-5, 5 days a week, for years on, can make business sense.

That is no more intriguing than the fact that if your competitor lowers their sales prices for an equivalent product from $100 to $50, you have to follow suit or you will not be selling a lot. And if you can't figure out how to make a profit at the lower price, you'll go out of business.

In the case of competition from OSS, your competitor's sales price has been lowered to $0. If you can't figure out how to make a profit in that kind of business environment, you'll go out of business. Quite simple.

Obviously, once the price is down to $0, you'll have to make your profit from something other than software sales, like associated hardware sales, custom development, associated proprietary software, support, or service. Companies like IBM seem to have figured out such a business model.

Incidentally, it's not just OSS that does this: Microsoft's free bundling of some piece of software has pretty much the same effect on competing software businesses.

DotGNU and Parrot : The Real Story

[Gopal.V]

DotGNU Support in Parrot CVS | Parrot Support in DotGNU CVS

*g* -- I like parrot -- In fact I want Parrot to become the FreeSoftware VM :)

Re:DotGNU and Parrot : The Real Story

[Anonymous Coward]

>I want Parrot to become the FreeSoftware VM :)

Totally. I can't wait till it's done so I can run it on Hurd on my dual-G5 PowerBook with a holographic display. That'll be so awesome.

I guess trolls stick together

[NSash]

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.

Re:I guess trolls stick together

[kfg]

The reason that the great-grandparent was modded troll was because it offered no argument. It was a piece of content-free flamebait.

You, sir, win the prize, being the first to simply supply the correct answer.

KFG

Heavily Licensed? Are you sure?

[Aphrika]

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.

Re:Does this mean more free apps for the pocket PC

[SphericalCrusher]

While running DotGNU, of course. Keeping your standard Palm OS... nope. It's just like running Windows (PocketPC) or Linux (DotGNU) today.

correct link for Mac portfile is here...

[ubiquitin]

pnet.darwinports.com/

go47

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T and Berkeley lube is wiped off gig in front of THINGS THE RIGHT mire of decay, Long term survival has steadily Needs OS. Now BSDI though I have never FreeBSD had long it attempts to else up their asses g0od to write you other members in large - keep your Head spinning reformatted and distraction of the warring overly morbid and best. Individuals may do, may not invited back again. and sold in the coomon knowledge

DotGNU isn't just a clone

[polveroj]

"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."

In other words, they're trying to embrace and extend DotNET. Once they get enough of the .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.

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:DotGNU isn't just a clone

[tshak]

Microsoft are in a hugely powerful position to control other .Net implementations by changing things arbitrarily.

You have to remember that has a huge installbase of .NET and while they can add new features, making breaking changes will have a negative impact on their customers.

Re:DotGNU isn't just a clone

[akb]

There is nothing to stop Microsoft from continually adding (or pre-announcing) new extensions to their .Net

Yeah there is. They can only force independent application developers to rewrite their apps so many times. They'll need this especially in the short to mid term as a newish technology looking to gain traction via mind share, competeing against the established Java community.

Re:DotGNU isn't just a clone

[Decaff]

Yeah there is. They can only force independent application developers to rewrite their apps so many times.

They are not interested in independent application developers - they want the corporate developer. Microsoft frequently introduce new versions of products that require significant re-writes to remain compatible.

Re:DotGNU isn't just a clone

[Decaff]

You have to remember that has a huge installbase of .NET

There is no evidence of this. Only a very small percentage of PCs and servers have .Net installed.

making breaking changes will have a negative impact on their customers.

That has not stopped them before. I speak from 25 year experience with their developer tools. Microsoft have been adding incompatible features and screwing about with APIs for decades.

Re:DotGNU isn't just a clone

[tobar mersa]

Microsoft frequently introduce new versions of products that require significant re-writes to remain compatible.

But in this case, there's competition.

In Windows, when Microsoft changes the registry (or anything else mildly important), corporate developers must change their code base in order to maintain compatibility, because otherwise they would not be able to keep using Windows.

However, if Microsoft adds a major change to .NET, then (when dotGNU is finally advanced enough) corporations have the choice of either changing all their programs that run on the .NET infrastructure, or changing to the dotGNU infrastructure. Then, the corporation can choose whichever best fits their needs at the moment, or will best fit them in the near future. The feasibility of either of these options could be determined by the corporation, not by Microsoft.

Re:DotGNU isn't just a clone

[tobar mersa]

Am I the only one here positively giddy about the concept of the GNU Project trying to embrace and extend .NET, the product of that king of embrace and extend, Microsoft? After all, just think of the irony!

Consider it: people use dotGNU on platforms where .NET is too expensive to ensure compatibility; Microsoft does Something Stupid(TM), such as breaking compatibility between versoins of .NET; in order to maintain compatibility in those areas where dotGNU is used (because it would still cost an arm and a leg to use .NET in these select areas), dotGNU replaces .NET where .NET was used; then, when Microsoft decides to force people to update to a new license much more favorable to Microsoft than the user, because people are using dotGNU, they can decide that Microsoft can go hang, and convert their computers to GNU/Linux, or to another [Free|Open Source] operating system.

This sort of embrace and extend would only be practical in those environments where .NET was extensively used, and thus is unlikely to cause all former .NET users to first dotGNU, and then GNU/Linux; still, this is a large segment no longer in the thrall of Microsoft.

Re:DotGNU isn't just a clone

[Decaff]

Then, the corporation can choose whichever best fits their needs at the moment, or will best fit them in the near future.

I think you are missing the point. Microsoft can easily ensure that dotGNU is never advanced enough in comparison with .Net. They can add bytecodes, provide specialised SQLServer integration, or things like handwriting libraries. Microsoft can ensure that other .Net implementations never give the 'True .Net Experience'. Of course, only Microsoft extensions to .Net will be 'certified' as standard parts of the platform.

Open source versions of .Net will never truly compete with MS .Net because they will always have to play catch-up.

Re:DotGNU isn't just a clone

[omicronish]

Yeah there is. They can only force independent application developers to rewrite their apps so many times. They'll need this especially in the short to mid term as a newish technology looking to gain traction via mind share, competeing against the established Java community.

On the other hand, multiple versions of .NET can be installed and coexist, so old applications can continue using .NET version 1.0, for instance, while newer applications that want to take advantage of new features can be updated to use 2.0. You can't really avoid code changes if you want to use new features, but even when taking a look stuff like C# 2.0, most, if not all, of the changes are mere additions and extensions, not changes of existing features that would require an entire rewrite.

The only problem is when new APIs require a complete rewrite, but I have not experienced with any Microsoft API, including Direct3D, which required only simple modifications. Direct3D's variability is still an exception, however. All other APIs I've seen have been fairly stable across versions.

Re:DotGNU isn't just a clone

[Decaff]

Am I the only one here positively giddy about the concept of the GNU Project trying to embrace and extend .NET, the product of that king of embrace and extend, Microsoft? After all, just think of the irony!

I hope you are one of the few keen on that idea, as I think its an incredibly dangerous idea. Do you think Microsoft would allow any 'embrace and extent' strategy to work? Its their technology; if open source versions of .Net get to popular they can easily dump .Net, come up with something else and declare that the standard development environment for Windows.

Of course, you can only embrace and extend a product if you have the time and resources to provide something that is (1) totally compatible and (2) has more features. Do you seriously think Microsoft would let (1) happen? Every single thing they have done has confirmed their strategy of trying to cooerce users and developers onto Windows.

Re:DotGNU isn't just a clone

[Decaff]

On the other hand, multiple versions of .NET can be installed and coexist,

I'd be impressed if they can - my personal experience of installing multiple versions of anything under Windows makes me doubtful...

All other APIs I've seen have been fairly stable across versions.

Perhaps I'm so bitter and cynical about Microsoft because I have experienced such changes :)

Here are some examples:
Win3.51 to Win4.0
The whole mess of Win32s on Win3.1
Visual Basic, Basic for Application compatibility.
At least two rounds of major macro incompatibilities and API changes in versions of MS Access.
Security system changes in different NT service packs.
Visual Basic to VB.Net
The loss of the PenWindows API.

Re:DotGNU isn't just a clone

[fault0]

> You have to remember that has a huge installbase of .NET and while they can add new features, making breaking changes will have a negative impact on their customers.

Not really.. .NET's installbase won't become "huge" until Longhorn. When that arrives, Windows Update will take care of whatever Microsoft wants to do in terms of extending .NET.

Re:DotGNU isn't just a clone

[Anonymous Coward]

Any company like Sun who comes up with an idea should be forced to have that idea taken away from them and given to the open sourcers.
Reading this I am more convinced that we've made the right decision to step out of the java business and to make our product available for .NET. It was a long way from a standalone product through an EJB component to our own server implementation and now to make it compile under J#.
Sales for the .NET component are still low compared to the java component but I am convinced that dropping EJB, implementing our own server architecture for the component and now slowly migrating from Java to .NET was and is the right path..

Java (J2ME) is much better in PDA and handheld

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been developinh java in Handheld and smart phone for the past 2 years and J2ME just rocks

J2ME is more mature

who doesn't see THIS coming..

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:who doesn't see THIS coming..

[omicronish]

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...

MS releases virtually all of their SDKs for free, including those for mobile device development. They wouldn't lose money if people went for this, at least not directly.

Shipping + Ownership of your Soul

[Anonymous Coward]

Shipping charges + One Soul Male.
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 .NET SDK will work without VS.NET (then why can't this one).

-1, wrong

[iamacat]

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?

Re:-1, wrong

[Decaff]

J2ME has a childish UI library that assumes 1D screen with no layout.

Nonsense. FIrstly, screens are 2D! Secondly, there are loads of GUI toolkits for J2ME, some open source. The latest J2ME version includes a 3d-game api.

And lack of native code/regular filesystem access? Argh!

Why would you want native code access on a secure VM designed to run portable binaries?

Re:-1, wrong

[mousse-man]

Because we want to poke the PocketPC fans a bit more and have them use things like Linux Handhelds, OpenZaurus (and their successor OpenEmbedded instead of that freakin OS with mostly costly apps that few people use. Basically, that's what drove me away from Palm....

Now having DotGNU ported to OpenZaurus/OpenEmbedded would be very purty and with OpenEmbedded, it might even work with Linuxed iPaqs one day.

Re:-1, wrong

[iamacat]

Nonsense. FIrstly, screens are 2D! Secondly, there are loads of GUI toolkits for J2ME, some open source. The latest J2ME version includes a 3d-game api.

Add-on UI toolkits are either slow (because they can't use native code) or tied to a specific vendor (that's some portability!). And in any case, lack of standard means every decent application has it's own L&F to learn. I can't imagine how Sun justified not including AWT.

Why would you want native code access on a secure VM designed to run portable binaries?

Because the included functionality is not enough to write an application that looks like it belongs to the device. As for security, you want security from programs that I install myself on my own PDA?

Re:-1, wrong

[Decaff]

Add-on UI toolkits are either slow (because they can't use native code)

What UI toolkits do use native code? Apart from some highly specialised hardware, every GUI ever invented is an emulation. Do you think the checkboxes and buttons on PocketPC machines are some sort of hardware?

And in any case, lack of standard means every decent application has it's own L&F to learn.

So what? Do people find things like Windows Media player difficult because the buttons are different shapes from those in MS Word?

I can't imagine how Sun justified not including AWT.

Portability. Unlike .Net, j2me is designed to be downwardly scalable to devices with working memory footprints of a few hundred kilobytes. Its about true portability, not just working in power-hungry cut-down versions of Windows.

Because the included functionality is not enough to write an application that looks like it belongs to the device.

You don't seem to understand J2ME. The functionality libraries are provided by the device manufacturer, so that they do look like it belongs to the device.

As for security, you want security from programs that I install myself on my own PDA?

You bet I do. I don't want a program to corrupt memory or attempt to use hardware or a phone connection unless I want it to.

Re:-1, wrong

[Chanc_Gorkon]

THERE ARE FREE APPS for PocketPC. Sure, GPL'd apps there are not too many of, but free as in beer apps are plentiful. Look at my other post and see the free stuff. Or just do some googling.

What Would Miguel Do?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

C# just sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

.Net and C# is still like VB very immature and sucks like hell.
I still prefer java and J2ME over .Not.

Great here's another idea

[puppetluva]

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?

Licensing fees

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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 .NET costs $$$, but who needs that - they give you the compilers, libraries, and docs for free)

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hehe..:)

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 .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.

Regards,
Vitaliy Pronkin
pub-at-mifki.ru

Re:What?

[Brannoch]

Well in that case, are you planning to port the Portable.NET runtime to WinCE? I can compile .NET programs 3 different ways on my main system, but none of my WinCE systems are supported by the .NET CF runtime, nor can they be upgraded.

If I had more money I could just replace my own hardware but I know dozens of people with HP820s that they would be unlikely to give up.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't going to port runtime engine because I just wanted to be able to develop on PDA and now I can. But if sometime I'll have enough free time, maybe I'll try to do this, you aren't the first who asking about this.

Regards,
Vitaliy

Re:Does this mean more free apps for the pocket PC

[fzammett]

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.

For once the mods get it right

[Anonymous Coward]

+4, Funny. Absolutely.

Java3D?

[fprog]

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...

Re:Java3D?

[Decaff]

So, yes, it works, but yes they are big limitation on it....

If that were the case, it would not run on mobile devices with only a few MB of memory. Of course, it does.

.NET opposes open standards

[Openstandards.net]

The problem is that the .NET "standard" is still going to be maintained by Microsoft. I know that C# has been given to the ECMA; but that's only part of .NET. The APIs are still going to be dictated from Redmond, so any implementation of it, including open source, is supporting Microsoft as a standards setter.

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?

Re:.NET opposes open standards

[Westley]

Yes, C# is only part of .NET. It's not the only part that has been submitted to ECMA though - there's ECMA 335 as well, which is the CLI, including the basic standard libraries. Of course, there's still more to .NET - the "standard" libraries are fairly small compared with what MS describes. Better than nothing though.

iPaqLinux.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Related info:

www.iPaqLinux.com

Dumb

[Chanc_Gorkon]

The compact framework has no licensing issues other then it's not open source. This is a pointless waste of time.

Re:Does this mean more free apps for the pocket PC

[Chanc_Gorkon]

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.

Re:Does this mean more free apps for the pocket PC

[nadaou]

Keep an eye on handhelds.org

This will open you up to 10,000 free software packages.