Microsoft Open Sources .NET Micro Framework
320
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."
As Admiral Ackbar warned (Score:4, Informative)
It's A Trap!
Re:Mono? (Score:5, 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.
Re:My first question would be... (Score:2, Informative)
Sorry, .NET Compact Framework is for devices running CE. .NET micro is different, its a version of .NET that runs directly on the the hardware (no CE at all), a lot like running embedded C on a microcontroller. Says it right in TFA.
Re:My first question would be... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:My first question would be... (Score:4, Informative)
.NET micro is mostly for embedded devices running WinCE.
Nope, you're wrong. You're thinking of the .Net Compact Framework [wikipedia.org]. 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 [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re:My first question would be... (Score:3, Informative)
also, there are free (as in beer) licences of VS express.
Re:My first question would be... (Score:3, Informative)
Sybase? I think you mean MSSQL. Also, the Eclipse IDE actually has some capability for .NET development now [ibm.com]. This can easily be used with open version control solutions. It may not be good for developers who are doing large projects, but for anyone developing plug-ins for office apps or something similar it's not too bad.
Still behind the curve. (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:My first question would be... (Score:5, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org]
So whats changed
Re:My first question would be... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Open Sourcing Platform Lock-In Is Meaningless (Score:3, Informative)
Hahaha, nice one.
In case you're not getting the joke: The very definition of open-source [opensource.org] 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 [gnu.org] 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.
Re:My first question would be... (Score:4, Informative)
There is Sharp Develop [icsharpcode.net][www.icsharpcode.net]. An open source IDE for .NET. It supports C#, VB, Boo, and F#.
Re:My first question would be... (Score:5, 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.
Re:Mono? (Score:3, Informative)
Dominating? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:My first question would be... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:My first question would be... (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.
Re:My first question would be... (Score:1, Informative)
SourceSafe would be better off forgotten entirely.
Yep definitely ... you must call it by its real name though SourceShredder
Re:Mono? (Score:3, Informative)