digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

PDC09 - Microsoft to Open Source the .NET Micro Framework

blogs.msdn.com — Peter Galli reporting form PDC09 - Today, at the Microsoft Professional Developer Conference (PDC) here in Los Angeles, we announced not only the release of version 4.0 of the.NET Micro Framework, but also that we are open sourcing the product and making it available under the Apache 2.0 license...

Who dugg this? Made popular 11 days ago

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

41 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • NotAChickenHawk, on 11/17/2009, -1/+20Silly question - what is the difference between the .NET Framework and the .NET Micro Framework? Is the latter a subset of the former?
  • MrAbbas, on 11/17/2009, -8/+25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _________
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./ It’s a trap!
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _,,,--~~~~~~~~--,_ . . . . ._________/
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ : : : :::: :::: :: : : : : :º ‘-, . . /. . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . . . . . .,-‘ :: : : :::: :::: :::: :::: : : :o : ‘-, . . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ :: ::: :: : : :: :::: :::: :: : : : : :O ‘-, . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . . .,-‘ : :: :: :: :: :: : : : : : , : : :º :::: :::: ::’; . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . .,-‘ / / : :: :: :: :: : : :::: :::-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ; . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . /,-‘,’ :: : : : : : : : : :: :: :: : ‘-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;;| . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . /,’,-‘ :: :: :: :: :: :: :: : ::_,-~~,_’-, ;; ;; ;; ;; | . . . . . . .
    . . . . . _/ :,’ :/ :: :: :: : : :: :: _,-‘/ : ,-‘;’-‘’’’’~-, ;; ;; ;;,’ . . . . . . . .
    . . . ,-‘ / : : : : : : ,-‘’’ : : :,--‘’ :|| /,-‘-‘--‘’’__,’’’ ;; ;,-‘ . . . . . . . .
    . . . :/,, : : : _,-‘ --,,_ : : : ||/ /,-‘-‘x### :: ;;/ . . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . / /---‘’’’ : # : : : : : | | : (O##º : :/ /-‘’ . . . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . /,’____ : : ‘-# : , : : : : ‘-,___,-‘,-`-,, . . . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . ‘ ) : : : :’’’’--,,--,,,,,,¯ :: ::--,,_’’-,,’’’¯ :’- :’-, . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . .) : : : : : : ,, : ‘’’’~~~~’ :: :: :: :’’’’’¯ :: ,-‘ :,/ . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . .,/ /|\| | :/ / : : : : : : : ,’-, :: :: :: :: ::,--‘’ :,-‘ . . . . . . . .
    . . . . .\’|\ |/ ‘/ / :: :_--,, : , | )’; :: :: :: :,-‘’ : ,-‘ : : : , . . . . . . .
    . . . ./¯ :| | : |/ :: ::----, :/ :|/ :: :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : ‘’-,,_ . . . .
    . . ..| : : :/ ‘’-(, :: :: :: ‘’’’’~,,,,,’’ :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : : : :,-‘’’\ . . . .
    . ,-‘ : : : | : : ‘’) : : :¯’’’’~-,: : ,--‘’’ : :,-‘’ : : : : : : : : : ,-‘ :¯’’’’’-,_ .
    ./ : : : : :’-, :: | :: :: :: _,,-‘’’’¯ : ,--‘’ : : : : : : : : : : : / : : : : : : :’’-,
    / : : : : : -, :¯’’’’’’’’’’’¯ : : _,,-~’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : :| : : : : : : : : :
    : : : : : : :¯’’~~~~~~’’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : | : : : : : : : : :
  • Fduch, on 11/17/2009, -1/+17The Base Class Library of .NET Micro Framework is nearly a subset of .NET Framework's BCL, but the most important part - Common Language Runtime is very different.
    .NET Framework's CLR runs ontop of Windows OS which has WinAPI etc.
    .NET Micro Framework's CLR can run on bare hardware and in extreme size/memory conditions.
  • elektronjunge, on 11/17/2009, -3/+17This is huge, I hope they do this for the full version of .net. It would help open source interoperability so much.
  • kaykfrink, on 11/17/2009, -1/+14Awesome. Microsoft seems to be taking on a different attitude lately. I'm glad to see the company is willing to consider open source now; I think this will lead to benefits for both sides.
  • bobfamiliar, on 11/18/2009, -0/+10The .NET Micro Framework is a development and execution environment for resource-constrained devices. Details are here: http://www.microsoft.com/netmf/default.mspx
  • cfelde, on 11/17/2009, -1/+10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Micro_Framework
  • Fduch, on 11/17/2009, -0/+8Micro Framework can run on bare hardware and in extreme memory/size conditions.
    It's far more awesome than .Net Compact Framework.
  • dig1x, on 11/18/2009, -0/+6You dont know WTF you're talking about. NETMF runs on bare-hardware, without an OS.

    Thousands of devices run NETMF right now.
  • rmxz, on 11/17/2009, -4/+10Different?

    Embrace, Extend, Extinguish has always had an Embrace phase.

    From at least the 1980s, Microsoft has gone through phases of interoperating with other projects, only to backstab them later. Windows 3.1 running on Dr-DOS is an early example.[1,2] Their bundling and then extending of Java's another.

    If history repeats itself, we'll see Microsoft encourage this open .NET -- only to release a slightly different .NET-micro-version-(n+1) that's not as open after it gains momentum.
  • LordofShadows, on 11/18/2009, -3/+7jerk, I thought my page hadnt loaded yet for the longest time because of you.
  • Fduch, on 11/17/2009, -0/+4>If Micro$oft follows through with this, and pushes the full .NET framework out as Open Source, this is a HUGE announcement.
    .Net Framework was open source even before it v1.0 release.Now you can even step in Framework's source code when you debug.

    P.S. just don't forget the difference between open source(tm) and free software. Just don't listen to the shady Linux PR people trying to confuse you.
  • ArthurSucks, on 11/18/2009, -1/+5I guess Open Source has been down-graded from "Cancer" to "Disco Fever" in the mind of Ballmer?
  • ItWasOnlyAJoke, on 11/18/2009, -0/+3Ch-ch-ch-chaaanges...*cough* Google *cough*
  • rmxz, on 11/18/2009, -0/+3How do you backstab FOSS? A patent-free .NET-micro version 1.0 followed by a patent-encumbered .NET-micro version 1.5 is my guess.

    Microsoft java - not an epic failure - by deviating from specs just enough to destroy Java's "write once / run anywhere" claim it contributed nicely to Sun's demise.
  • Fduch, on 11/17/2009, -1/+4What the hell are you talking about?
    You are obviously lying since everyone knows MS just funded an outside open working group which created converters.
  • KibibyteBrain, on 11/18/2009, -0/+3How do you backstab FOSS? You can't, there is no one to kill.
    The .NET Micro Framework has not been very successful, and yet it is key to the long term success of the .NET Framework as a one size fits all programming model for high level programming that still needs some performance and system-level ties. Soon we will be in a world where people want their thermostat to read back their tweets and browse Google Wave, so making the thermostat run on an 8051 with a couple KB of assembler to run it just won't cut it anymore. Also, even now most "smart devices" are reaching pricepoints where paying for a license per unit is just not a practical model anymore. MS could do better making money selling SDKs or services with lump sum fees than not making anything off that old fashioned model.
    So no, Microsoft's heart is hardly bleeding in this move, they are doing it in their self interest. But its a good thing for the FOSS community.
  • Fduch, on 11/17/2009, -4/+6Pxtl, just shut the ***** up.

    You know nothing, yet make that awful whining noise.
    Go read what open source, free software, shared source, .Net Micro Framework and WPF are.
    >Also, keep in mind there are many parts of the .NET framework that are integrally tied to Windows
    Windows on my wristwatch?? I thought I only had .Net Micro Framework there...
    >Windows.Forms ... underlying Windows implementation
    That's why it's called WINDOWS.Forms and not Presentation Foundation which is platform-independent and works even on Macs (Silverlight).

  • Fduch, on 11/18/2009, -0/+2They already did this some years ago.
    Ever wondered what hid behind all those [MethodImpl] in Reflector? It's easy to find out.
  • DaviDTC, on 11/18/2009, -1/+3For asking a question? I'm guessing you had to make a couple of those purchases if you think asking a question is wasting my life.
  • Fduch, on 11/24/2009, -0/+1There alway was open and closed source. The closed source is the source you can't see. The open source is the source you can see.
    Then along came Linux PR people and mighty OSI Corporation. They even tried to trademark Open Source(tm) to regulate people using the term.
    Even Richard Stallman is against of calling GPL code Open Source.
  • urbandragoon, on 11/18/2009, -2/+3Seriously, mate, head over to Ebay and get yourself 20 pounds of life. You are wasting it!
  • Atomic1fire, on 11/18/2009, -1/+2except that microsoft java was an epic failure,
    besides, Google just released its own programing language,
    Microsoft needs to step up its game a bit.
  • 3242130193, on 11/18/2009, -1/+2Dunno why you're being buried, it's pretty true. .NET is their crown jewel of software. Most of the rest is buggy, bloated and insecure.
  • 3242130193, on 11/18/2009, -0/+1Yes but it would be unwise of them to exert patent muscle in here. MS is failing dismally in the mobile sector, this may be their only chance to keep their foot in the door.
  • iridesce, on 11/18/2009, -0/+1True, but wouldn't it just be easier to have odt, ods, etc as recognized formats - somehow I imagine the wizards at Microsoft could pull it off.
  • 3242130193, on 11/18/2009, -0/+1No this is a good question. See section 3: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html

    I think it means that you forfeit patents, and this is GPL v3 compatible, so I would expect it to, but I read on Slashdot that it does not make this a safe patent haven, so hopefully someone else can give a better answer
  • KibibyteBrain, on 11/18/2009, -0/+1I don't think doing it for the main tree of .net would actually be very helpful. .net is already completely free as in beer, and is tied to a closed source OS that isn't going anywhere on that front. Very little about .net that isn't already open source through Microsoft(the CLR) or the Mono project isn't dependent on closed source stuff, and it probably does expose some proprietary knowledge about the OS that Microsoft would rather not let out. It might help Mono keep up with .net a little bit more but I doubt it would be as noticeable as you would think, the difference between having a solid specification + a blessing IP wise (which MS already provides) and the source code when you have to change the code significantly anyway is nil.
  • Atomic1fire, on 11/18/2009, -0/+1Free software is just a buzz term at this point, no offense, but some of the heavy opensource stuff is counterproductive, like iceweasal, since its just firefox with a different name and ideology, and a crappy name at that.
    Open source means anyone can see and edit the code, and even download it and branch off it,
    Shared source means that microsoft still owns the code, but they are sharing it with you.
  • asaone, on 11/18/2009, -1/+1We should remember that Microsoft is a preditory company and will do and say anything to get what it wants and then try to make it its own standard and charge everyone out the ass for it. Microsoft has proven it can not be trusted, so I don't.
  • trghpy, on 11/18/2009, -1/+1I'm waiting for the punch line...
    Something like ".NET Micro Framework is using code from a open source project and must open source"

    Just say'n
  • Pxtl, on 11/17/2009, -3/+3Whoops, missed the "Micro" part... a subset I've never heard of before. This is suddenly so much less cool.
  • rmxz, on 11/17/2009, -2/+2How so?

    I'd have hoped interoperability would come through well defined standards-based interfaces - like xmlrpc or rest based web services; like standards-based file formats like ODF; and through platform neutral message buses (dbus), etc.

    That way projects could interoperate whether they're based on one particular framework or another.

    I suppose this'd help the mono project interoperate; but aren't they mostly covered by the no-sue-covenant between Novell and Microsoft anyway?
  • seltaeb4, on 11/17/2009, -4/+3I bet they are planning some MS-exclusive implementation, just like they did with the OpenOffice file format.
  • Pxtl, on 11/17/2009, -10/+8OMG. Does Apache license have rules relating to patents, though? Also, keep in mind there are many parts of the .NET framework that are integrally tied to Windows - for example, Windows.Forms has a farktonne of idiosyncratic behavior that comes from the underlying Windows implementation of the GUI objects (the corresponding implementation in Mono is a valiant but futile project).
  • superkendall, on 11/17/2009, -8/+5Micro has nothing to do with Compact, which is what mobile phones use. Micro is basically something no-one wants or uses, so Microsoft is opening it for free PR.
  • marm0lade, on 11/17/2009, -8/+5Shut up.
  • Chewie67, on 11/17/2009, -9/+3If Micro$oft follows through with this, and pushes the full .NET framework out as Open Source, this is a HUGE announcement.

    MS is notorious for crap software, but .NET -- at least for web development -- is one bright spot. Visual Studio 2008 is a great IDE, and debugging .NET code is far easier than any other web technology I've ever worked with (PHP, ASP, ColdFusion, Perl, Java, etc.).

    I'd like it to produce a bit cleaner HTML, but otherwise it's brilliant.
  • DaviDTC, on 11/17/2009, -18/+3Submitted 20 hours, 40 mins with 6 diggs and 1 comment before it was picked for trending. How is this a high volume of activity Digg? http://blog.digg.com/?p=1106
  • drsjlazar, on 11/17/2009, -28/+3erm... what open source code did they use this time?
  • minidiez, on 11/17/2009, -37/+3Ok.

















    So what?

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.