4 ms·

Nice, but totally Microsoft centric.

by motters 16y ago

nopassrecover 16y ago
The point? That's like saying Google Instant Search is Google-centric, or the iPhone is Apple-centric.
evo_9 16y ago
Yes but it's also Open-Source. I know, hard to wrap ones mind around those seemingly incompatibly entities
- rbanffy 16y ago
  My main problem with .NET-derived stuff is not the availability of the source or your ability to ship products with source derived from it, but rather the risk of Microsoft deciding one day that anyone who uses their patented technologies should pay licensing fees. Their community promise only covers the bare ECMA standard, something, AFAIK, this is not part of.
  - dschobel 16y ago
    This either means you're avoiding Java now as well (because Oracle is clearly getting litigious about it) or you're spreading FUD.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      Actually, you are spreading FUD (or simply lack of knowledge on the discussed subject). As long as you use Java as it is implemented in the OpenJDK or a derived product licensed under GPL you are safe from Oracle's lawyers. The GPL is protecting users and developers in this case. What enabled Oracle to go after Google is that Google made an independent implementation that's neither derived from OpenJDK nor licensed under GPL.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      Care to explain what Oracle can do against OpenJDK?
  - evo_9 16y ago
    Can you give some examples of when Microsoft has done that in regards to .Net? Just imagine the uproar that would cause if Microsoft tried to really do that. Look at the uproar from Apple changing their EULA and there was no charge or cost involved.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      Apple has more developer than Mono has users (including those who don't know they are using Mono). And it's not like Microsoft really cares about how Mono developers feel. They would spin it as "defending their IP" like they did when they extorted TomTom for using FAT on their GPSs.
      - shadowfox 16y ago
        Hmm. So this is all just based on what you feel MS will do without any real pointers. I was hopeful :(
        rbanffy 16y ago
        I have no privileged access to Microsoft's stratrgy. I can only say what they can do, not what they will.
redstripe 16y ago
What does that generic MS critique even mean? That it's controlled by Microsoft? The entire thing is open source: "The .NET Micro Framework 4.1 source is available, it's Open Source under the Apache 2.0 License. (Ya, the new Microsoft is freaking me out also. There's a lot of source that's quietly making its way out under increasingly liberal licenses.)" I would say it's damn awesome, not just nice. You can get a controller for $34.95 and program it in a modern user friendly IDE. You can even step through code in the debugger. It makes hardware tinkering ridiculously accessible to a lot of people. If I had a kid I would love to be building little projects with this. Lego mindstorms is $300 I think.
- MartinCron 16y ago
  To me, "Microsoft-centric" means that I get to use C#, Visual Studio, nUnit and ReSharper to write code that runs on these tiny little hardware devices. Sign me the hell up.
- jarek 16y ago
  To be fair, and I am a pretty big fan of VS, the Arduino boards cost about the same or slightly more, and their provided IDE is not a lot worse than VS for basic projects.
  - jordan0day 16y ago
    I think the advantage here may not be IDE (although VS is a pretty nice IDE) but language. If you're much more comfortable writing C#, then Netduino could be much more productive for you. Obviously if it were a serious hobby, you'd probably invest the time to become better at C++, I would imagine. Still, a little variety never hurt anyone.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  > What does that generic MS critique even mean? Probably that it requires Windows in order to use the toolset. That's a no-no for me. I can run Windows on VMs, but I just don't want to and Arduino provides me enough without having to run Windows in any case. It may also refer to the possibility Microsoft decides to sue you for patent infringement (their promise only covers the parts that are ECMA standards) if you ever build a successful product with it.

Nice, but totally Microsoft centric.

by motters 16y ago

Nice, but totally Microsoft centric.

nopassrecover 16y ago

The point? That's like saying Google Instant Search is Google-centric, or the iPhone is Apple-centric.

evo_9 16y ago

Yes but it's also Open-Source. I know, hard to wrap ones mind around those seemingly incompatibly entities

rbanffy 16y ago
My main problem with .NET-derived stuff is not the availability of the source or your ability to ship products with source derived from it, but rather the risk of Microsoft deciding one day that anyone who uses their patented technologies should pay licensing fees. Their community promise only covers the bare ECMA standard, something, AFAIK, this is not part of.
- dschobel 16y ago
  This either means you're avoiding Java now as well (because Oracle is clearly getting litigious about it) or you're spreading FUD.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    Actually, you are spreading FUD (or simply lack of knowledge on the discussed subject). As long as you use Java as it is implemented in the OpenJDK or a derived product licensed under GPL you are safe from Oracle's lawyers. The GPL is protecting users and developers in this case. What enabled Oracle to go after Google is that Google made an independent implementation that's neither derived from OpenJDK nor licensed under GPL.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    Care to explain what Oracle can do against OpenJDK?
- evo_9 16y ago
  Can you give some examples of when Microsoft has done that in regards to .Net? Just imagine the uproar that would cause if Microsoft tried to really do that. Look at the uproar from Apple changing their EULA and there was no charge or cost involved.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    Apple has more developer than Mono has users (including those who don't know they are using Mono). And it's not like Microsoft really cares about how Mono developers feel. They would spin it as "defending their IP" like they did when they extorted TomTom for using FAT on their GPSs.
    - shadowfox 16y ago
      Hmm. So this is all just based on what you feel MS will do without any real pointers. I was hopeful :(
      - rbanffy 16y ago
        I have no privileged access to Microsoft's stratrgy. I can only say what they can do, not what they will.

redstripe 16y ago

What does that generic MS critique even mean? That it's controlled by Microsoft? The entire thing is open source: "The .NET Micro Framework 4.1 source is available, it's Open Source under the Apache 2.0 License. (Ya, the new Microsoft is freaking me out also. There's a lot of source that's quietly making its way out under increasingly liberal licenses.)" I would say it's damn awesome, not just nice. You can get a controller for $34.95 and program it in a modern user friendly IDE. You can even step through code in the debugger. It makes hardware tinkering ridiculously accessible to a lot of people. If I had a kid I would love to be building little projects with this. Lego mindstorms is $300 I think.

MartinCron 16y ago
To me, "Microsoft-centric" means that I get to use C#, Visual Studio, nUnit and ReSharper to write code that runs on these tiny little hardware devices. Sign me the hell up.
jarek 16y ago
To be fair, and I am a pretty big fan of VS, the Arduino boards cost about the same or slightly more, and their provided IDE is not a lot worse than VS for basic projects.
- jordan0day 16y ago
  I think the advantage here may not be IDE (although VS is a pretty nice IDE) but language. If you're much more comfortable writing C#, then Netduino could be much more productive for you. Obviously if it were a serious hobby, you'd probably invest the time to become better at C++, I would imagine. Still, a little variety never hurt anyone.
rbanffy 16y ago
> What does that generic MS critique even mean? Probably that it requires Windows in order to use the toolset. That's a no-no for me. I can run Windows on VMs, but I just don't want to and Arduino provides me enough without having to run Windows in any case. It may also refer to the possibility Microsoft decides to sue you for patent infringement (their promise only covers the parts that are ECMA standards) if you ever build a successful product with it.