Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Open Sources .NET Micro Framework

An anonymous reader writes "Back in July, Microsoft announced it was making .NET available under its Community Promise, which in theory allowed free software developers to use the technology without fear of patent lawsuits. Not surprisingly, many free software geeks were unconvinced by the promise (after all, what's a promise compared to an actual open licence?), but now Microsoft has taken things to the next level by releasing the .NET Micro Framework under the Apache 2.0 licence. Yes, you read that correctly: a sizeable chunk of .NET is about to go open source."

10 of 320 comments (clear)

  1. As Admiral Ackbar warned by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's A Trap!

  2. Re:Mono? by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nope this framework is for mobile devices and the 360.
    Microsoft is really dieing in the mobile space right now. WinMo 6.5 Still doesn't have native support capacitive touch screens and the Mobile world is on fire with Android and of course the iPhone.
    HTC, LG, and Samsung are all developing or have released Android phones.
    Palm and Motorola are now dropping WinMo and going with WebOS and Android.
    This is one space where Microsoft is at best an also ran and really is dropping in the race for mind share.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  3. Re:My first question would be... by NervousNerd · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not quite. Visual Studio Express is free for commercial usage.

  4. Re:My first question would be... by ChatHuant · · Score: 3, Informative

    .NET micro is mostly for embedded devices running WinCE.

    Nope, you're wrong. You're thinking of the .Net Compact Framework. Basically there are three .NET implementations available from MS (ignoring Rotor for the time being). The Windows one (known as "the .Net Framework") is the largest, with lots of libraries and capabilities. The Compact Framework targets Win CE level devices (fewer resources, lower capabilities), and takes about 12 Mbytes. The .NET Micro Framework targets even smaller devices; it has a subset of the .NET classes, and can fit in 300 kBytes or less. The .NET Micro Framework doesn't need an OS to run (but it can run on an OS). That's the thing that was running in the (now defunct) SPOT watches and MSN Direct traffic dongles. Those were tiny devices which couldn't have run Win CE.

  5. Re:My first question would be... by omar.sahal · · Score: 4, Informative

    a company is made up of people

    and it is also a company, a hierarchal organization were those lower down have to do what those higher up tell them to do. Those higher up have a pattern of behavior that justifies many of the fears on Slashdot. Groklaw is full of evidence, much of which was gained through court systems from around the world.
    So to quote Wikipedia

    The base technologies submitted to the ECMA, and therefore also the Unix/GNOME-specific parts, may be non-problematic. The concerns primarily relate to technologies developed by Microsoft on top of the .NET Framework, such as ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows Forms (see Non standardized namespaces)

    So whats changed

  6. Re:My first question would be... by Xabraxas · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have nothing against mono, I just can't afford to work in what amounts to a 4 year old version of the framework.

    Bogus. Mono is very current with .NET and has even beaten MS to the punch on some features. The major missing features compared to .NET are the MS specific libraries and proper current Silverlight support. So unless you're developing Silverlight apps or Windows specific software (which would obviate the choice to use Mono anyway) I doubt you have even tried Mono.

    --
    Time makes more converts than reason
  7. Re:My first question would be... by rliden · · Score: 3, Informative

    There is Sharp Develop[www.icsharpcode.net]. An open source IDE for .NET. It supports C#, VB, Boo, and F#.

    --
    Don't think of it as a flame, more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage.
  8. Re:My first question would be... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 4, Informative

    You don't need SourceSafe at all to do any sort of .NET development. Subversion, git, CVS, etc. all work fine for .NET development.

    SourceSafe would be better off forgotten entirely.

  9. Re:Mono? by talcite · · Score: 3, Informative

    You completely forgot the current leader in phone OSes, Symbian. It doesn't get many press releases, but it's got more market share than the iphone, Android, WinMo, AND Blackberry combined. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone#Operating_systems

  10. Re:My first question would be... by EvanED · · Score: 3, Informative

    Lots of people have corrected you, but I'm going to correct you in a different manner: not only is SourceSafe not required, but MS has basically been trying to phase it out in favor of Team Foundation Server (part of VS Enterprise I think) for a while now.

    MS knows SourceSafe is crap; it's one of the few products that no one dogfoods internally.