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."
Just what is Microsoft's angle? Surely they are gaining some advantage here.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
I must have the swine flu. Maybe I'm having a psychotic episode. Did I wind up in a holodeck? Or the Twilight Zone? It must be one of these things because I keep having these senseless hallucinations where MicroSoft acts like a decent company.
Woo! Now I don't have to feel guilty when I bitch about Mono not f***ing working correctly.
Microsoft knows that mobile development is booming right now and their best chance to get into the market is on very accessible powerful development tools rather than the Windows OS which is quickly losing market share. If Microsoft can have mobile developers coding in .NET, having them be familiar with Windows development is trival (since the Framework obstruficates most of the OS API.)
If the Framework gets ported to non-MS platforms, having those developers develop on Visual Studio, on Windows, in Windows eco-systems is additional trivial.
I am absolutely certain that iPhone development is causing iPhone developers to learn and be comfortable with XCode on Mac machines while at the same time creating more skilled Objective-C coders that will be more proficent in writing normal OS X applications.
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
I can't express how excited I am to see how this will be turned against Microsoft.
Not satisfied with killing software competitors by the Embrace, Extend and Extinguish methodology, now they are doing it to licenses. Pretty soon Apache license will be incompatible with everything non Microsoft, inlcuding Apache Web Server. Run, Run away when you still can!
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I was initially impressed by the MS 'open' pledges, until I talked to several coder friends. Their take, paraphrased, was that it was window dressing with a lot of traps. Basically, they 'opened' the wrapper, just like they did with their Office formats.
The problem, as it was explained to me, is that if you want to do anything useful, you have to call a bunch of things that are not opened, will not be opened, and MS can still sue your *ss off for using. One person asked how useful it is to 'open' the hypothetical call, Play_video_with_MS_proprietary_closed_codec? I mean, you can copy the functionality, but your software is only cross-platform to the extent that MS proprietary and closed codecs and other things are 'open'.
This is nothing more than a stealth PR attempt, they will use it to say, "We opened everything up, and see, Linux still sux0rz because it can't play movies, sound, DRM, or anything else useful. We opened everything up, but the Linux model is broken, and their lazy codes won't do the right thing. If you want real XYZ, you need Windows".
It is nothing more than opening the most useless bits, and using it as a PR hammer. Yay progress?
-Charlie
I feel so free! I can use my MS products with my Apple and Linux! I'll never have to take sides ever again to keep my karma whole! Gather around everyone and let's sing Kumbaya!
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
Wake me up when they open source the main .NET framework. They put this out there because no one is using it.
My mind works like lightning. One brilliant flash and it is gone.
It's A Trap!
Mono.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Is the world going to end now that Microsoft has released Open Source code?
Step 1. Embrace. .Net 5.0: Now with new Windows-only features!") .Net 4.0 and earlier now deprecated.")
Step 2. Extend. ("New
Step 3. Extinguish. ("Support notice:
Step 4. Profit.
Remember Internet Explorer for Unix (and Mac?) Remember what happened to that once IE was dominant?
Maybe it is a promo for the 2012.
Or
then the maya calendar has Its reason to end on 2012....
Hell is Freezing somewhere...
First they release the source code for Windows 7 USB/DVD Download Tool, and now they open up part of the .NET framework.
That's one small step for Microsoft, one giant leap towards OpenWindows initiative.
Where is RMS when Half-Life 2 went FOSS?
New Economic Perspectives
It took some work to locate, but I knew there was skullduggery afoot...
Microsoft has taken things to the next level by releasing the .NET Micro Framework under the Apache 2.0 licence.
There ya go. Microsoft has cleverly made it look like they were following the Apache 2.0 license, when in reality they've got some evil spawn of their own creation that goes under the name "Apache 2.0 licence". That special Microsoft license probably says Ballmer gets to eat your firstborn, or something equally nefarious.
Those dastardly evildoers!
#DeleteChrome
Yeah... open source doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. In fact your point is nonsensical as because you have the source you could port it to whatever platform you want. Seriously, wtf are you blathering on about?
Ugh, I guess we'll have to eat this boring oatmeal...
It's A Trap!
Bow-ties are cool.
You don't train a misbehaving dog to be well-mannered by whacking it one every time it wags its tail.
Microsoft knows that mobile development is booming
Drum boom bass and the party is boomin'!
Bow-ties are cool.
Making it open source allows you to use it, distribute it, and modify it. Even if nobody ports it to your favorite platform, it's still a win for the users. No longer do you have to depend on Microsoft for bugfixes. No longer do you have to hope that, one day, they will implement the feature you're waiting for. Microsoft is no longer the only party allowed to improve the platform or tailor it to your needs. Once it's open source, everyone is allowed to do so.
So while you are right that making the software open source doesn't magically make it portable, it is far from meaningless.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
It seems to me like MS has started acting on consumer's behalf in the past year or two. Despite how much I hate Office and how that unit operates, they have been doing a lot of other things that I've been rather impressed with.
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
This is all about trying to gain mobile market share, but realistically all they're doing is highlighting the headache. Thanks, but I don't want to build an app in Objective C, Java, and .Net and get them certified by Google, and Microsoft, and Apple. What a headache. As usual Microsoft is arriving at the point when the whole idea of writing custom apps per phone is starting to jump the shark.
If they would release an easy to use IE mobile virtual images like they've done for all the current IE desktop applications they might actually have something like a leg up on their competition (I know they have some emulator inside Visual Studio, but that's not the same).
Google has a cross-platform emulator, but neither Apple nor Microsoft do. This could easily be another situation like Firefox where developers design webapps for Android and make them work passably on the other browsers.
I wonder what Microsoft is going to supersede .NET with and when. And which version of .NET is this?
There's already a Mono compiler for the iPhone - it simply doesn't run in a VM at runtime, but is statically compiled beforehand. Apple doesn't care how the binary you submit was produced.
I personally don't think it's a good idea to use bridge techniques like this just because you are familiar with a language, you will always lose out over truly learning the native platform.
One other thing of note is the Unity game development framework that lets you write game behavior login in either Javascript or C#.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
XCode is actually a pretty good tool, and while the multiple floating windows of IB can be hard to deal with I find that approach to GUI design to be way, way better than code-behind stuff UI tools normally spit out.
If you take the time to learn how to use XCode you'll find it does a lot more than you are thinking it does.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You also do not reward a dog for puking up a steak you didn't like either.
As was pointed out elsewhere, Micro framework (not even Compact) is hardly used by anyone, nor is anyone all that interested in it. So why should they be lauded for opening something no one was wondering what was inside of?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yes, you are, and yes, they are, because in the end it's them who will distribute their .NET Runtime, not you. Your fork may have feature X added, and bug Y corrected, but it doesn't matter because in the end, you'll have to code for their platform implementation.
Dilbert RSS feed
<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Micro Framework 74 of 10
Wow - I didn't know they needed an entire framework just to support NOBR and WBR. Weird.
Honestly, Slashdot, if you can't handle HTML tags in story titles, how about you take all of 1 minute to add the code that strips it out? Sheesh.
``
Yes, you are, and yes, they are, because in the end it's them who will distribute their .NET Runtime, not you. Your fork may have feature X added, and bug Y corrected, but it doesn't matter because in the end, you'll have to code for their platform implementation.''
I don't see why. Since the platform is open source, you can distribute your improved version of it.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
I thought it felt a bit chilly this evening.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Making it open source allows you to use it, distribute it, and modify it.
Wrong. Open Source and Free software are totally different things. Yes, Free software is Open Source, but being Open Source does not mean that it is Free. Just because someone allows you to use the source of a program doesn't mean you can legally do anything you want with it. However, I just looked up the Apache License and it seems very similar to licenses like the LGPL, so in this case, you're free to do as you please.
Just want you all to know the difference so you're not confused in the future.
"Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
What market uses .NET Micro? Is it for smart phones or embedded devices? If it's for smart phones, I can see this as a reaction to Apple, Android, and Palm Pre. While Windows apps still outnumber the other platforms, all the interest these days is in the newer platforms.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
- Is there not promise of rain?
- Yes, but only a promise.
I wouldn't touch this .Net stuff with a 10-lightyear pole, open source or not.
I, as an avid Linux user, am bemused by how hard everyone in the discussion the parent started is trying to find SOME reason to look at this as a BAD thing. =) Sometimes you have to know when to let go, kids. Microsoft did a good thing today.
If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention.
From the article:
Microsoft isn't opening up the whole stack: the TCP/IP parts are missing because another company wrote that code, and the cryptography libraries are missing because "they are used outside of the scope of the .NET Micro Framework"
Does anyone know how hard it is to write your own .Net classes/wrappers for the missing pieces? .Net references for CLR internals? I know how Java was designed and written, did Anders or Microsoft provide any references for .Net internals outside of the PR fluff pieces on MSDN? How about a decent book.
Are there any good
From a embedded Linux perspective, I find this way more interesting than Mono.
Thanks,
It's just the normal noises in here.
Hahaha, nice one.
In case you're not getting the joke: The very definition of open-source states that modification and distribution must be allowed.
So yes. If it is open source, you _are_ allowed to distribute and modify, exactly as I stated.
Also, Free software and open source software are _not_ different things (and neither does the article referenced by the parent claim they are). The difference is not in the software, but in the philosophy: open source is the apolitical term, whereas Free software is the term preferred by those who wish all software to be Free software.
``Just because someone allows you to use the source of a program doesn't mean you can legally do anything you want with it.''
That is correct, but just being allowed to use the source in some way does not make the software open source, in the same way that not being charged for the software doesn't make it Free software. Some of Microsoft's earlier "shared source" initiatives can serve as an example of this: you get to see the source code, but you are not allowed to modify and distribute it - therefore, it is not open source.
``Just want you all to know the difference so you're not confused in the future.''
I hope that my post has managed to clear up some confusion. And please, don't go off misrepresenting open source anymore.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
.NET is "a Windows thing" in the same sense that Internet Explorer is "a Windows thing": it's the name of Microsoft's implementation. IE is not the only web browser; there's also Firefox. Likewise, .NET is not the only CLR; there's also Mono.
I dont know what creeps me more, Microsoft going open source or that Colin guy on their page! He wants to chat with me omg! "Got a question? Ask Colin", "Would you like to have a dialog with Colin?"... But I know how im naming my spam bot! :P
It depends on whose definition you use. The OSI apparently intends for all open source software to be free as well, which is why they approve licenses which follow that ideal. You seem to be implying that all open software is free. GP corrected you, correctly.
"Open source" conventionally means the source is open, so a lot of Microsoft's "shared source" falls under the term open source. It happens not to meet the OSI standard.
The entire point of this page is to spell that out, using of course definitions from a different person - Richard Stallman "Our" in this context refers to GNU. In contrast to the previous gnu.org link, this one states that they are different, though overlapping. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
To summarize, there are a lot of people who believe access to source code does not imply you can do with it as you will, Microsoft is usually in that boat. Others believe it should be implied that releasing it means others can use it as they wish, same as if they got a table and wanted to saw off a leg to fit the oddly curved floor, which meets the definition of Stallman and by representation GNU.
I would say that choosing a single definition of open source when it is well known that definitions vary is misrepresentation.
Eventually they'll open up the entire Windows Mobile stack under a BSD license. The goal is to get it out in front of enough developers that one of them can figure out how to make it not suck.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Doesn't that kill one of the main advantages of .NET over platforms like Python, or even Java, which is the availability of the .NET runtime in every Windows box?
If you have to dispatch your version of the runtime with your app, it will be a major pain for the users, not only in download size (the 3.5 already weights almost 200MB), but also in security updates, etc.
Besides, the one of the mottos was that the domain code written for a desktop app could be easily used in a web app, in ASP.NET, because the languages and APIs are the same (except for particular cases like the interface). If forks start to appear, you may build you desktop app for NETRTM_XYC and then when you want to move it for a web server or mobile app you find out that that specific fork doesn't support those platforms, and now you have to basically go through all you app and rebuild it targeting another runtime.
Dilbert RSS feed
I think you are insane if you spend even one minute building on Microsoft's sand. Even if you could trust them, not even they know WTF they are doing.
They may have overtaken Palm by a large margin, but they never even caught up with RIM let alone "dominated" the market as a whole which included other players like Nokia and Samsung as well.
Don't forget that quite a few .NET apps also use P/Invoke to take advantage of the Win32 API. Also, Mono is not bug for bug compatible so any apps that rely on bugs in .NET probably won't work right either.
Upon reviewing the thread I must disagree; there are a fair amount of positive posts and the people hating on what can only be considered a "good" thing have been promptly rebuttted.
The .NET Micro runtime (ie, what they open-sourced now) weights around 300k, not 200 MBs, and if what you want is standardization then you should get together with a few mobile gadget manufacturers and establish a standard for future .NET runtimes, so that you have a baseline to rely on and compare yourself as you fix bugs and implement new features in yours.
Sure, it ain't gonna be *easy*, but it's never easy for a lone guy to change the world. This, at least, removes the need for Microsoft to OK your idea before you put it in practice though.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
You shoot it, right?
I saw it in old yeller. Great movie. Dog gets shot, fun for the whole family.
Signed, cat lover.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Their angle is that they are scared. Google Android is eating their lunch on the mobile front. Other platforms, tools, and services are making Windows and Office less and less relevant.
You're going to see more open source releases from Microsoft as the company is trying to avoid falling completely by the wayside. IBM was the same way when they lost their monopoly.
WinCE? I think I heard that name once or twice, before the iPhone and Droid came out. Perhaps MS wants people to get excited about MS mobile development again?
I don't find it on Codeplex. Maybe it's on Sourceforge ;-)
Hardly anyone really cared about the .NET micro framework and it *failed* to create/capture any big market. So they axed most of the team and and are now releasing the source. Of course they are going to slaughter it for PR-purposes... in the hope someone will get into the Windows ecosystem and develop with it.
See:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/16/dot_net_micro_framework_open_sourced/
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/05/07/microsoft_products_scaled_back/
You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works;
I don't see anywhere that it says you must distribute the source code. Just that the source code version must contain the copyright, patent etc information. So could you distribute the binary and "retain" the legal junk in your private version of the source code? .Net in terms of the version of the framework it clones.
At the moment MS only ships versions for Windows and I don't think they have any plans to change that. There is the Mono project which has reverse engineered a lot of the framework but to be honest it isn't that great, it is roughly 5 years behind the current version of
The .NET Micro framework is even tinier than the .NET Compact Framework! The .NET Micro Framework is for embedded devices with high constraints. It's useless for desktop applications.
I wouldn't hurry to declare victory of Open Source against Microsoft.
What does this have to do with the CP debacle? We are not even talking about the same .net implementations.
So, regarding "Real" .net: If the CP suddenly made .net "safe" why won't Novell drop their exclusive deal with MS and stop advertizing themselves as the ones with MS' blessing? I would not consider Mono safe until its own copyright holders stop claiming they have an exclusive right to distribute it without getting suits from MS. This is quite logical and rational, yet I expect to get flamed as a zealot in no time...
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
Do not make me choke!
If we cant submit fixes to code branches, we just end up with forked Microsoft products.
The P/Invoke issue is easy to solve via WINE, yes its annoying but solvable in almost every case.
The bug compatibility problem can easily be fixed too, I myself take advantage of these differences as most times I can fix the bug in my code that misused the MS .NET framework when the problem is found with the Mono framework.
Either way, you will need to enlist the help of the application developer to resolve the issues, unless of course you don't mind decompiling the app and fixing the problem yourself, which is entirely possible, if non-trivial with most .NET apps, even after code obsfucation.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
The entire premise of your post is for all intents and purposes false to 99.9% of the world.
Very few organizations are going to keep their own patchsets against the framework. Even fewer are going to implement their own features. In both cases, you can really only do so for internal software. If you distribute it externally you run into compatibility problems with the main distributions. Yes, you can coexist, but your product has to be a 'must have' before most companies are going to deal with your own special version of the framework, its own set of bugs, and keeping it up to date and patched.
Yes, OSS allows you to do everything you speak of from a theoretical view point, but from a practical view point its a lot different for everyone but the largest of large companies.
Google may maintain its own patchsets against the Linux kernel, but they have a team of people to do it and their core business IS writing software. Take the other 10 or so companies that fall into the same category out of the picture and you won't find many people doing the same.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
That is but one definition and not everyone agrees. I for one disagree. To me OSS means I can see the source legally, period. You ( and plenty of others ) extend it to include distribution, but to me that would be Open and Distributable Source.
I could continue to quote your post and my points but I think I'll just be repeating myself. You have but one view of OSS, one which myself and many others don't feel the same way about.
So no, you're post hasn't cleared up any confusion, its just pointed out how many many people have an extremely narrow and self centered view of the issues involved. When you get outside the realm of Stallmans cult, and no longer think that there is no room in the world for commercial/proprietary software the definition tends to be more in line with what the term means from a strict definition rather than a liberal interpretation and all inclusive definition.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Nov-09.html