5 ms·

There is no way that'll ever happen. Much more likely; Xamarin is acquired, monodevelop development halts and the Xamarin offerings become VS pro features, giv

There is no way that'll ever happen. Much more likely; Xamarin is acquired, monodevelop development halts and the Xamarin offerings become VS pro features, giving Microsoft a foot hold in the mobile space (which they desperately need) and maintain VS revenue. It's arguably not a terrible direction for things to go... If, unlike me, you dont passionately despise VS. :p

thatthatis 13y ago
Sadly, I agree with you. I think Ms will continue to play the short game and wonder why they struggle to win the web and mobile. The irony is, they'll give you $200 of swag at every event to grow their ecosystem 1 dev at a time, but they won't open source to grow their ecosystem 10x.
- tbirdz 13y ago
  F# is open source, and available on github.
  - thatthatis 13y ago
    I haven't investigated F# much. I'll take a look.
    - adolfojp 13y ago
      They have open sourced a bunch of their dev products including ASP.NET MVC, the Entity Framework, Web API, Web Pages, the Razor view engine, and SignalR. And instead of reinventing libraries like they used to they started to embrace some open source libraries like modernizr, jQuery, Bootstrap, and Json.NET. And to promote their Windows Azure initiative they released a platform installer that allows you to install open source products like PHP, MySQL, and Wordpress on your Windows box with just a few clicks. Microsoft is a big company with many different clashing cultures. As a result some divisions shower you with software goodness and others with patents and lawyers.
      - thatthatis 13y ago
        ASP.NET MVC, the Entity Framework, Web API, Web Pages, the Razor view engine, and SignalR are under this license: http://www.microsoft.com/web/webpi/eula/aspnetcomponent_rtw_enu.htm http://www.microsoft.com/web/webpi/eula/aspnetcomponent_rtw_... Which I commented on here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6727423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6727423 At best, they are under a free commercial license. They are not available under FOSS licenses.
        adolfojp 13y ago
        Not anymore. They were later released under the Apache 2 license. http://aspnetwebstack.codeplex.com/license http://aspnetwebstack.codeplex.com/license http://entityframework.codeplex.com/license http://entityframework.codeplex.com/license http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2012/03/27/asp-net-mvc-web-api-razor-and-open-source.aspx http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2012/03/27/asp-net-mv... I suggest updating your comment.
        thatthatis 13y ago
        The current license linked at http://www.nuget.org/packages/EntityFramework/ http://www.nuget.org/packages/EntityFramework/ is the one I commented about. I'm glad to see they're moving more of these technologies over to truly FOSS. Which pieces are on which license if you get it from which place? I'll update the linked comment with that blog post -- I seriously scoured the other press release and couldn't find which license these were released under.
        knocte 13y ago
        You guys are talking about different things. The licences of the projects (EntityFramework, ASP.NET) are opensource, but the licence only applies to the sources. Nuget packages, however, are binary. And they might have a different licence. So to avoid the latter, you just need to compile the sources yourself instead of using the Nuget packages. EDIT: actually, the last paragraph is not true anymore, thanks to this: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dotnet/archive/2013/11/13/pcl-and-net-nuget-libraries-are-now-enabled-for-xamarin.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dotnet/archive/2013/11/13/pcl-and-ne...
- sanxiyn 13y ago
  TypeScript is open source (Apache 2.0).
- PallarelCoedr 13y ago
  They have open-sourced quite a lot (aspnet webstack, reactive extensions, etc). The problem is that a lot of their compiled binaries, delivered via nuget packages have been restricted to windows. This is slowly being undone ( http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dotnet/archive/2013/11/13/pcl-and-net-nuget-libraries-are-now-enabled-for-xamarin.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dotnet/archive/2013/11/13/pcl-and-ne... ). Another problem is that they don't run their open source projects in an open manner. Contributing requires a CLA and a signature from your boss. Issues and planning are often behind closed doors, but that seems to be slowing changing too (see KatanaProject / signalr). If they really wanted to grow their ecosystem 10x, and give windows phone the possibility of a fighting chance, making VS Pro free would be the required.
  - thatthatis 13y ago
    I've never had to work so hard to find out _what_ license they're releasing things under. I followed about seven links and finally got it. EDIT: Apparently they haven't updated their nuget packages and some of these components truly are licensed under FOSS, per: http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2012/03/27/asp-net-mvc-web-api-razor-and-open-source.aspx http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2012/03/27/asp-net-mv... and https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=adolfojp https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=adolfojp The license that used to cover all of these, and that may still cover some of the components is this: http://www.microsoft.com/web/webpi/eula/aspnetcomponent_rtw_enu.htm http://www.microsoft.com/web/webpi/eula/aspnetcomponent_rtw_... I like to think of things as copyright, copyleft and copy middle. This looks like an entirely new beast: copyquagmire A few pieces of the license: * For any Distributable Code you distribute, you must · add significant primary functionality to it in your programs; ... · indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Microsoft from any claims, including attorneys’ fees, related to the distribution or use of your programs. * So, if you redistribute these libraries, you agree to be on the hook for MS legal bills. * Distribution Restrictions. You may not · modify or distribute the source code of any Distributable Code so that any part of it becomes subject to an Excluded License. An Excluded License is one that requires, as a condition of use, modification or distribution, that · the code be disclosed or distributed in source code form; or · others have the right to modify it. * So it is anti-GPL. I personally think this is a good thing, I hate the copy-virus in the GPL. Maybe this is even a poison pill that invalidates GPL code in a project, thereby protecting you from inadvertently letting your code fall under GPL (which I would consider to be a good thing). Whichever clause wins, this is a quagmire. Lets continue. * you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. You may not · work around any technical limitations in the software; · reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation; · publish the software for others to copy; · rent, lease or lend the software; · transfer the software or this agreement to any third party; or · use the software for commercial software hosting services. * So, basically you can't modify it or change it. * BACKUP COPY. You may make one backup copy of the software. You may use it only to reinstall the software. * Why the hell is this in an "open source" license? This isn't an open source license, this is a free commercial license with a bit of lipstick, a wink, and a head-fake towards openness. Thankfully, it seems other divisions of msft (F# for instance) use the Apache License V2 which is in fact a copy-middle free as in beer and freedom open source license.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- marshray 13y ago
  Among other things mentioned here, .NET Micro Framework is now Apache 2.0 license http://netmf.codeplex.com/ http://netmf.codeplex.com/
LordIllidan 13y ago
What about iOS where you definitely need OSX? Xamarin has some integration with VS (I've never used it myself), but it still needs a mac with OSX installed to work (even if it's just a macmini somewhere. If Microsoft does buy Xamarin, I'd like the following to happen: Xamarin and TestCloud become much cheaper. More attention given to the IDE - fix the hell out of it Better documentation I also think it's a fantastic way of encouraging developers to work on WP 8. The less code you need to port from Objective-C/Java to .net, the better.
- skrebbel 13y ago
  > What about iOS where you definitely need OSX? I predict Xamarin Build Cloud. Devs who want to make WP apps on Mac or Linux have exactly thr same problem, just the other way around. A well integrated, "it just works" cross-platform build solution, straight from the IDE, has a lot of market value and fits perfectly in Xamarin's portfolio, Microsoft or not.
  - LordIllidan 13y ago
    That would be incredible. And they could use their test cloud infrastructure for automatic testing upon build..
  - thatthatis 13y ago
    Not quite the same problem as MS officially supports running win7/8 in a virtual machine.
  - keithwarren 13y ago
    I actually ask Miquel about this very thing at Evolve last April and he said they would love to do something like that but Apple TOS forbid it. That is your impediment.
antihero 13y ago
It's an utterly terrible direction to go. It's basically forcing people back onto the Windows stack which we've been trying so hard to get away from.

thatthatis 13y ago

Sadly, I agree with you. I think Ms will continue to play the short game and wonder why they struggle to win the web and mobile. The irony is, they'll give you $200 of swag at every event to grow their ecosystem 1 dev at a time, but they won't open source to grow their ecosystem 10x.

tbirdz 13y ago
F# is open source, and available on github.
- thatthatis 13y ago
  I haven't investigated F# much. I'll take a look.
  - adolfojp 13y ago
    They have open sourced a bunch of their dev products including ASP.NET MVC, the Entity Framework, Web API, Web Pages, the Razor view engine, and SignalR. And instead of reinventing libraries like they used to they started to embrace some open source libraries like modernizr, jQuery, Bootstrap, and Json.NET. And to promote their Windows Azure initiative they released a platform installer that allows you to install open source products like PHP, MySQL, and Wordpress on your Windows box with just a few clicks. Microsoft is a big company with many different clashing cultures. As a result some divisions shower you with software goodness and others with patents and lawyers.
    - thatthatis 13y ago
      ASP.NET MVC, the Entity Framework, Web API, Web Pages, the Razor view engine, and SignalR are under this license: http://www.microsoft.com/web/webpi/eula/aspnetcomponent_rtw_enu.htm http://www.microsoft.com/web/webpi/eula/aspnetcomponent_rtw_... Which I commented on here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6727423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6727423 At best, they are under a free commercial license. They are not available under FOSS licenses.
      - adolfojp 13y ago
        Not anymore. They were later released under the Apache 2 license. http://aspnetwebstack.codeplex.com/license http://aspnetwebstack.codeplex.com/license http://entityframework.codeplex.com/license http://entityframework.codeplex.com/license http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2012/03/27/asp-net-mvc-web-api-razor-and-open-source.aspx http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2012/03/27/asp-net-mv... I suggest updating your comment.
        thatthatis 13y ago
        The current license linked at http://www.nuget.org/packages/EntityFramework/ http://www.nuget.org/packages/EntityFramework/ is the one I commented about. I'm glad to see they're moving more of these technologies over to truly FOSS. Which pieces are on which license if you get it from which place? I'll update the linked comment with that blog post -- I seriously scoured the other press release and couldn't find which license these were released under.
        knocte 13y ago
        You guys are talking about different things. The licences of the projects (EntityFramework, ASP.NET) are opensource, but the licence only applies to the sources. Nuget packages, however, are binary. And they might have a different licence. So to avoid the latter, you just need to compile the sources yourself instead of using the Nuget packages. EDIT: actually, the last paragraph is not true anymore, thanks to this: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dotnet/archive/2013/11/13/pcl-and-net-nuget-libraries-are-now-enabled-for-xamarin.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dotnet/archive/2013/11/13/pcl-and-ne...
sanxiyn 13y ago
TypeScript is open source (Apache 2.0).
PallarelCoedr 13y ago
They have open-sourced quite a lot (aspnet webstack, reactive extensions, etc). The problem is that a lot of their compiled binaries, delivered via nuget packages have been restricted to windows. This is slowly being undone ( http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dotnet/archive/2013/11/13/pcl-and-net-nuget-libraries-are-now-enabled-for-xamarin.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dotnet/archive/2013/11/13/pcl-and-ne... ). Another problem is that they don't run their open source projects in an open manner. Contributing requires a CLA and a signature from your boss. Issues and planning are often behind closed doors, but that seems to be slowing changing too (see KatanaProject / signalr). If they really wanted to grow their ecosystem 10x, and give windows phone the possibility of a fighting chance, making VS Pro free would be the required.
- thatthatis 13y ago
  I've never had to work so hard to find out _what_ license they're releasing things under. I followed about seven links and finally got it. EDIT: Apparently they haven't updated their nuget packages and some of these components truly are licensed under FOSS, per: http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2012/03/27/asp-net-mvc-web-api-razor-and-open-source.aspx http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2012/03/27/asp-net-mv... and https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=adolfojp https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=adolfojp The license that used to cover all of these, and that may still cover some of the components is this: http://www.microsoft.com/web/webpi/eula/aspnetcomponent_rtw_enu.htm http://www.microsoft.com/web/webpi/eula/aspnetcomponent_rtw_... I like to think of things as copyright, copyleft and copy middle. This looks like an entirely new beast: copyquagmire A few pieces of the license: * For any Distributable Code you distribute, you must · add significant primary functionality to it in your programs; ... · indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Microsoft from any claims, including attorneys’ fees, related to the distribution or use of your programs. * So, if you redistribute these libraries, you agree to be on the hook for MS legal bills. * Distribution Restrictions. You may not · modify or distribute the source code of any Distributable Code so that any part of it becomes subject to an Excluded License. An Excluded License is one that requires, as a condition of use, modification or distribution, that · the code be disclosed or distributed in source code form; or · others have the right to modify it. * So it is anti-GPL. I personally think this is a good thing, I hate the copy-virus in the GPL. Maybe this is even a poison pill that invalidates GPL code in a project, thereby protecting you from inadvertently letting your code fall under GPL (which I would consider to be a good thing). Whichever clause wins, this is a quagmire. Lets continue. * you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. You may not · work around any technical limitations in the software; · reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation; · publish the software for others to copy; · rent, lease or lend the software; · transfer the software or this agreement to any third party; or · use the software for commercial software hosting services. * So, basically you can't modify it or change it. * BACKUP COPY. You may make one backup copy of the software. You may use it only to reinstall the software. * Why the hell is this in an "open source" license? This isn't an open source license, this is a free commercial license with a bit of lipstick, a wink, and a head-fake towards openness. Thankfully, it seems other divisions of msft (F# for instance) use the Apache License V2 which is in fact a copy-middle free as in beer and freedom open source license.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
marshray 13y ago
Among other things mentioned here, .NET Micro Framework is now Apache 2.0 license http://netmf.codeplex.com/ http://netmf.codeplex.com/

LordIllidan 13y ago

What about iOS where you definitely need OSX? Xamarin has some integration with VS (I've never used it myself), but it still needs a mac with OSX installed to work (even if it's just a macmini somewhere. If Microsoft does buy Xamarin, I'd like the following to happen: Xamarin and TestCloud become much cheaper. More attention given to the IDE - fix the hell out of it Better documentation I also think it's a fantastic way of encouraging developers to work on WP 8. The less code you need to port from Objective-C/Java to .net, the better.

skrebbel 13y ago
> What about iOS where you definitely need OSX? I predict Xamarin Build Cloud. Devs who want to make WP apps on Mac or Linux have exactly thr same problem, just the other way around. A well integrated, "it just works" cross-platform build solution, straight from the IDE, has a lot of market value and fits perfectly in Xamarin's portfolio, Microsoft or not.
- LordIllidan 13y ago
  That would be incredible. And they could use their test cloud infrastructure for automatic testing upon build..
- thatthatis 13y ago
  Not quite the same problem as MS officially supports running win7/8 in a virtual machine.
- keithwarren 13y ago
  I actually ask Miquel about this very thing at Evolve last April and he said they would love to do something like that but Apple TOS forbid it. That is your impediment.

antihero 13y ago

It's an utterly terrible direction to go. It's basically forcing people back onto the Windows stack which we've been trying so hard to get away from.