DotGNU Ported to PocketPC 167
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."
Some screenshots (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Cost of Compact Framework? (Score:5, Informative)
Windows Mobile Developer Resrource Kit [microsoft.com] All the SDKs on DVD/CD. I clicked through to order and the price of the kit was $0.00
Re:Some screenshots (Score:3, Informative)
A Dcop Component Tree in WinForms [freecache.org] , An HTML Renderer (compona.com not open yet) [freecache.org] A PieChart control [freecache.org] A simple IDE [freecache.org] ...
and much much more (I don't want that box totally slashdotted) !!!
DotGNU and Parrot : The Real Story (Score:5, Informative)
DotGNU Support in Parrot CVS [perl.org] | Parrot Support in DotGNU CVS [gnu.org]
*g* -- I like parrot -- In fact I want Parrot to become the FreeSoftware VM :)
Heavily Licensed? Are you sure? (Score:3, Informative)
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 [msdn.com]. It seems an SDK doesn't exist due to time constraints, rather than licensing requirements.
Re:Good News! (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Cost of Compact Framework? (Score:5, Informative)
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 [msdn.com] for the
Re:Cost of Compact Framework? (Score:2, Informative)
What? (Score:4, Informative)
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
.NET opposes open standards (Score:2, Informative)
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?