Slashdot Mirror
DotGNU Ported to PocketPC
t3rmin4t0r writes "The Pocket PC# group has ported DotGNU Portable.net to PocketPC. This is a significant step because the .NET Compact Framework SDK is heavily licensed, unlike the .NET SDK available for free from MSDN. Thanks to PocketPC#, now you can build Window.Forms C# applications for PocketPC without submitting to Microsoft's exhorbitant SDK licensing fees. Portability to embedded/low-end hardware is one of Portable.net's stated goals.
DotGNU Portable.net also works on 9 major CPU architectures according to gentoo's portage. The Darwin-ports features a cool package with Windows.Forms for Mac OS X. Handhelds like iPAQ or Zaurus have also ports (the iPAQ one features Windows.Forms). Esoteric hardware like
the Sony Playstation 2 or the Microsoft XBox can also run Portable.net."
This is great for people looking to develop on handhelds and smartphones such as myself. Programming for these devices really brings me back to the good old days in the 80s where one person could create a killer app or game!
Urge to post... fading... fading... RISING!... fading... fading... gone.
isn't DOT NET full of patents though (not that its gonna effect 90% of the globe)
doesnt it strike anyone as odd that i have to pay MS to make their product successful
licensing means its never yours so why bother
These two companies have been beaten by Microsoft playing the game better then them.
So what are they doing 15 years later? Playing back with Linux.
Open Source is not about free for these guys, it is increasing becoming a corporate game (Novell and IBM) with big profits.
Mono / dotGNU is about trying to treat the application developers equal. This is a chance to start over with Java-like technology.
Like it or not, don't ignore C# / dotNet. It likely has more users than Sun got in 10 years, anyone have numbers to share on that?
I'd never heard of a runtime fee associated with .Net compact framework.
Is this a lack of research or is there truth to this?
Take a look at the screenshots page. Spin through those shots and just try to keep a smile off of your face. Seeing OSX, windows, and foss all on the same screen and system? C'mon, it wasn't that long ago that all of this was just little dreams in some heads. Seriously, the linux kernel and gnu software have started what i see as pretty serious revolution. Did it not strike anyone that MS is finally, and visibly showing concern about the gnu/linux advances? This is really exciting stuff, well, to me anyway.
i know i'm wandering, but think about it, longhorn is a long way off, linux is moving....and very fast, i might add, and besides the ridiculous prices, OSX/Apple will be the only real competitor in the next few years. This nonsense involving Sun's current flip-flopping is merely hope confused with death throes.
So, the window is open and with more tools like DotGNU wrapping systems together, damn, i'm looking forward to what will happen in the next few years. Good stuff, i think.
It's slashdot. Anything which may be considered a controversial opinion (i.e. one which doesn't bow down to open source) is immediately modded as flamebait as no one will actually defend open source with arguments.
Even if a valid question is raised the gpl fanboys try and hide it. Which is a pain for people like me who use proproatary and open source software all day. I like open source but for some things I need my proprietary apps, I'm a pragmatist more interested in creating products than living to some moral standard.
-- Be careful what you say. Someone might remind you about it another day.
What are you talking about? This is slashdot. There's no room for intelligent debate here.
Then create a login/sign in, post what you think. If you're not a depraved moron most people will like some of your comments, so you're likely to get up to at least a 1 (if I can do it anyone can) at which point some people will have to mod you down (but it means they'll read you). If enough people do this people might change.
On the other hand bitching about it as an AC gets achieves nothing.
...before the Nastygram(TM) from MS's lawyer corps arrives?
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
here, here, here and here.
I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
Yeah, I remember how 1983 unix had loadable kernel modules, a /proc filesystem, Video4Linux APIs and hotplug device detection. Idiot.
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.
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?
DotGNU's java compiler can compile stuff like this (which was my Demo program for a LONG time).
It uses parts of classpath + C# glue and never got fully developed because nobody was interested. (and the javalib therefore never hit the CVS)
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
I just bought a new Ipaq which is pocket pc based.I've been trying to find good apps for it but theres hardly anything thats free and good.Most Pocket PC apps come to you with a "relatively" hefty price tag.
So like many others wondering about this, would DotGNU Ported to PocketPC bring more free and good applications for the users?? I think thats the bottomline rather than the C# or C++ issues.
Lord of the Binges.
DotGNU Support in Parrot CVS | Parrot Support in DotGNU CVS
*g* -- I like parrot -- In fact I want Parrot to become the FreeSoftware VM :)
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
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.
C is an ANSI standard language and has been implemented by hundreds of groups and companies, including all the major OS vendors.
.NET and this implementation are attempts to define, control, and open (or close) these basic layers. So if you take .NET seriously (which I do not, but that's a personal opinion), an open source equivalent is obvious and necesssary. Proprietary platforms extract a huge tax on their developers and customers: the lesson of Bell Labs' inventions and how they ended-up changing the world shows that gcc, Linux, and the thousands of other "clones" represent heroic and vital investments in reducing the cost of IT so that its benefits can reach beyond the elite.
Unix was largely standardised as POSIX long before Linux existed.
Both these (and many other technologies, such as parser generators, editors, networking) form basic layers of what has become a huge and sophisticated pyramid of applications.
Layers like
If you are still using the same applications as in 1983, then you have some catching up to do. In 1983 I was using vi and assembler and some C, and seriously, things have changed a little bit since then...
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
"DotGNU will be a complete replacement for .NET.."
.Net? I can't see them on the DotGNU website, and Mono state clearly they have no plans to implement them for now.
.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.
I seriously doubt this. For example, where are the enterprise libraries of
This is what seriously worries me. There is nothing to stop Microsoft from continually adding (or pre-announcing) new extensions to their
Collaborative systems like Java and parrot involve discussions amongst many organisations and people about what extensions and libraries are to be added.
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?
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?
Hehe..:)
:)
.net CF applications FOR PocketPC (you already can do this for a long time) - it allows to write them ON PocketPC, I ported only C# compiler and tools.
Who writes these news?
"The Pocket PC# group".. Author of this port is me, Vitaliy Pronkin.. I'll think about changing my name to "Pocket PC# group"
More.. This port doesn't allow you to write
Regards,
Vitaliy Pronkin
pub-at-mifki.ru
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.
First to the guy who says I am a non-coder - why would I have been a Unix in 1983 as a non-coder ? Besides, as a total non-coder I would have found getting my Ph.D in computer science a bit challenging.
/proc and loadable kernel modules and Berkeley Unix did not - frankly, operating systems technology must have been stalled if that is all the progress we got in 20 years. Even Multics had multi-processor support, and it came before Unix!
To the guy who called me an idiot because Linux has
To the reasonable parent of the present reply - I bemoan the fact that all the open-source programmer time goes on cloning - even if the clones are important bricks. Sooner or later Microsoft and friends will buy enough congresscritters to make cloning illegal - what then ?
And yes, I am still using a text editor most of the time, and a C compiler occasionnaly. This is what computer "scientists" do. This is where basic algorithms come from - thought and a small amount of programming. Think of me as the guy who develops the raw material for those important bricks. And I stopped using emacs, it's too complicated for my needs.
This is not a signature.