Windows CE Device Emulator Goes Shared Source 84
An anonymous reader writes "It seems that Microsoft has released their device emulator for Windows CE under a shared source license making it available to experimentation and teaching. From the article: 'The Device Emulator can be built as a standalone Windows application, or as the default emulator within Visual Studio 2005 running under the Device Emulator Manager, according to Microsoft. A 473 KB compressed file containing the Device Emulator shared source code is available for download' on the Microsoft site."
Dupe (Score:4, Informative)
was posted by timothy....
Re:Dupe (Score:4, Funny)
It is not productive for slashdotters to repeatedly discuss the same thing over and over. The purpose of an article is for us to
Now, could you please RETRACT this article and reassign all relevant comments to the previous article. Thank you.
Quokkapox [wanna-be editor]
Re:Dupe (Score:2, Funny)
your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
bugs (Score:1, Informative)
Or wait...
Re:bugs (Score:3, Informative)
Not bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
Still nice to see things become a little more open, I suppose.
Re:Not bad... (Score:5, Informative)
Also, the license doesn't seem to allow you to use it at all, unless you happen to be attending a school or university. For example, you can't use it if you are just a hobbyist.
Of course this fits in with Bill Gates' known views that hobbyists should pay for commercial software [wikipedia.org]
The strategy is to get them hooked at school, and then make them pay for the rest of their lives.
Re:Not bad... (Score:2)
Like crack-cocaine ?
-Jar.
Re:Not bad... (Score:1, Informative)
I'm assuming you're talking about this?
Re:Not bad... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ths modifies all the above. It means unless you're under this category specifically, you don't have a license for the items you mentioned.
Re:Not bad... (Score:2)
Umm, no, I didn't - that's located in the defition section, and that certainly does not modify all the above (aside from defining academic purposes). The terms still only refer to patent and copyright grants - it has nothing to do with the license. You do not lose the ability to use the software by not attending an academic insituation.
Since I was ambushed with this distinction before (and rightly so, might I add) when I spoke (rashly) about the GPL applying to use and not just distribution, I thought I w
Re:Not bad... (Score:2)
As you say, the license grants a right to "... reproduce the software ... solely for academic purposes"
Since this is the *only* copyright right granted by the license, and it is *only* granted for "academic purposes", and "academic purposes" is explicitly defined as "... while attending or employed by an accredited educational institution", I can't see how I can "reproduce the software" unless I am an academic.
And the RIAA and their friends have established that downloading a file onto my hard drive i
Re:Not bad... (Score:2)
Not quite. By your logic, it is a violation of the GPL to download a GPL'ed program without the source (that is, you download the binary and not the source, even though the source is available):
Re:Not bad... (Score:2)
Of course the GPL was written some years ago, before the problems associated with copying MP3s and the like became so well-known. This Microsoft license is a new one, so I would
Re:Not bad... (Score:2)
My wife does scrap-booking and she pays for all sorts of stuff for that hobby.
I build model rockets and I pay for parts for that.
I can see you saying that is different. That isn't software.
My wife and I play video games which since we don't get paid for that is a past time or a hobby. And we pay for those.
It is great when a company gives hobbyist a break but it really shouldn't be expected.
Re:Not bad... (Score:2)
Isn't the other point to contaminate the students with MS IP and thus taint Open Source projects they work on in the future?
Re:Not bad... (Score:1)
Re:Not bad... (Score:2, Informative)
QEMU version 0.8.0 is out (Changelog).
* Support for ARM Integrator/CP board system emulation.
* Support for MIPS R4K system emulation.
http://www.qemu.com/ [qemu.com]
NDA by any other name (Score:1)
It's a Non-Disclosure Agreement dressed up by marketing. Calling 'shared' source or anything else for that matter won't change that.
You cannot use the emulator on/with/for any non-MS operating systems at all:
Re:Not bad... (Score:2)
XBox? CE.
Smartphone? CE.
ECM/BCM units in cars? CE.
GPS in your automotive navigation system? CE.
Windows Mobile? CE.
Your uber-shiny computerized (for the love of god, WHY?) refrigerator? CE.
CE is far from dead, it's just renamed depending on the application. WinCE is very much alive.
Re:Shared source? Here's one with no license at al (Score:2)
Perhaps you meant:
// "suck(argv[i])", I just like the sound of that...
;)
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
for (int i = 0; i < argc; i++)
suck(argv[i]);
return(0);
}
Besides, all the ballsucking is already in windows.h
Re:Shared source? Here's one with no license at al (Score:2)
Here's a little experiment for you:
char *p = "foo1";
char q[] = {'f', 'o', 'o', '2', '\0'};
char *r[] = {"foo3", "foo4", "foo5"};
printf("1 = '%s'\n2 = '%s'\n3 = '%s'\n4 = '%s'\n5 = '%s'\n6 = '%s
Re:Shared source? Here's one with no license at al (Score:1)
char** a, b, c;
After the above line, a would have type (char **), but b and c would be of type char - which can be a surprise for novice programmers.
Re:Shared source? Here's one with no license at al (Score:2)
"char **" is the type definition for "a". Yes, the "**" is part of that datatype. It's a pointer type, most emphatically NOT a character type.
"char **a, b, c" is a mixed declaration; simply bad programming, and the perpetrator deserves what happens to him.
Re:Shared source? Here's one with no license at al (Score:1)
Basically, do it however you like, but put them in separate declarations if you're going to mix pointers and non-pointers.
Where's the free Windows Mobile IDE? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Where's the free Windows Mobile IDE? (Score:1)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/mobility/othertech/eVis
Re:Where's the free Windows Mobile IDE? (Score:1)
Re:Where's the free Windows Mobile IDE? (Score:2)
Re:Where's the free Windows Mobile IDE? (Score:1)
wait, walsoft? micromart? what? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:wait, walsoft? micromart? what? (Score:1)
"OK, listen up,line forms on the left" (Score:5, Funny)
*crickets*
The first hit is always free. (Score:2, Insightful)
Get a generation interested (read addicted) and then sell up.
Lock in the hardware and software and wait for the developer productivity to pay it all back.
MS is getting better (Score:2)
Eventually they might open up a lot of platform code, maybe even Windows itself. I still remember BillG saying that way back i
no, that's just called "evil" (Score:4, Insightful)
Unlike, say, Stallman, I have no problem with closed source software; I think closed source software will fail in the long run, but I also think it is perfectly legitimate for companies to attempt to make closed source software their business model.
In contrast, I think "shared source" is sleazy and evil: it's an attempt to entangle students and users in proprietary software licenses and to get people to work for Microsoft for free. Sun has tried to do the same thing with their "community licenses".
If someone offers you source code, don't look at it unless it comes under a genuine open source license; anything else is too risky.
Re:no, that's just called "evil" (Score:2)
Re:no, that's just called "evil" (Score:2)
No, what needs to die is the idiotic lie that you can look at source code with impunity.
Many source licenses and even documentation licenses from companies like Microsoft and Sun include explicit restrictions on what you can do after you have looked at the source code.
Unless a source license explicitly disclaims any restrictions on what you can do afterwards, you run a huge risk
Re:no, that's just called "evil" (Score:2)
Even if that weren't the case, were it to come to court simply looking at the code and then going and working on something similar opens the door for a lawyer to suggest that was where you got some of your ideas from. All they have to do is draw enough parallels between the code and your product and put on a good enough show and
Shared Source == SCO Replacement (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:MS is getting better (Score:1)
Enough for anybody! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Enough for anybody! (Score:2, Insightful)
All software is full of assumptions that a particular path can never be taken. By placing ASSERT(0) in these places it alerts a developer running debug code that there is either a problem in their code or more likely a device driver is behaving badly.
It's a technique used by experienced mature developers..
Re:Enough for anybody! (Score:2)
I'm not trying to flame you - I just don't understand why you'd leave code that's never meant to be run sitting around the code base, and take the effort to write more code to make sure it doesn't get run. Surely the best way to make sure code isn't running is to remove it from the codebase.
Re:Enough for anybody! (Score:2)
The assertion's there because I know that the appropriate entry exists in the hash table. If it's not, there's something very wrong. I could write
Re:Enough for anybody! (Score:1)
Re:Enough for anybody! (Score:1)
Does it emulate WinCE freezes (Score:4, Funny)
Has anyone ever seen a WinCE device that dosn't fall over frequently?
Re:Does it emulate WinCE freezes (Score:2)
Yeah, I have to reboot it a couple of times a month. Yeah, It has memory leaks. However, I have NEVER lost data. Overall it does the PDA things very well, and the phone bits (which I use less than the PDA bits) adequately. PocketPC suffers from the mis-conception that it's a just a PDA platform. It's not, it's a full Computer OS, with all the pitfalls, and all the benefits.
-Jar.
Re:Does it emulate WinCE freezes (Score:2)
Re:Does it emulate WinCE freezes (Score:2)
Unlike my PC, my phone/pda reboots in under 30 seconds, it's hardly an inconvenience.
-Jar.
Re:Does it emulate WinCE freezes (Score:2)
Re:Does it emulate WinCE freezes (Score:2)
That's because Microsoft has two separate product lines. One is called "Windows Embedded" and encompasses WIndows CE and Windows XP Embedded. The other is called "Windows Mobile" and brings under one roof PocketPC and Smartphone.
People get confused because the first devices from Microsoft were running Windows CE, which was so poor as a PDA that well, it was laughed off the market (c'mon, double
Re:Does it emulate WinCE freezes (Score:2)
Re:Does it emulate WinCE freezes (Score:2)
My biggest problem with CE, and perhaps it's been improved in more recent versions is the number of redundant taps you have to do the same task as Palm OS used to do with one. In on my old Vx I could enter an appointment by tapping on a timeslot and st
Win CE memory / data loss (Score:2)
Sure, I got around that by backing up frequently, but still what a drag. I'd keep using the iPaq if it was a little more robust about data.
Now the LifeDrive you ask? Well, it's got it's own set of problems, data loss (knock on my wooden head) not one of them.
I admit I'm nostalgic; nobody has ever m
Re:Win CE memory / data loss (Score:2)
Re:Win CE memory / data loss (Score:2)
Re:Win CE memory / data loss (Score:2)
I actually prefer the iPaq hw - are any of the current WinCe PDAs sporting persistent storage? I have to admit I really like the LifeDrive's 4GB hard drive, but the device has it's own set of problems - lots of
Re:Win CE memory / data loss (Score:2)
I think... (Score:3, Funny)
VM for my malware (Score:2)
Re:VM for my malware (Score:1)
The emulator itself without code has been free for some time, the CE 3.0 (which, theoretically, 5.0 is completely backwards compatible with) emulator has been free for years. You could also have used a real device and just cold booted to clear it. I don't see why you need a VM at all.
I'm just wondering, what real benefit does the source to the emulator afford you that you could not have worked on it before? Or are you just making an idiotic
Re:DREAMCAST! (Score:4, Informative)
have to come up with an SH4 emulator as this is for ARM/XScale versions of CE only, along with some way of emulating the behavior of a PowerVR chip because they didn't come up with DirectX for CE (It's part of the reason they use Embedded XP in the X-Box...).
Re:DREAMCAST! (Score:1, Interesting)
*cough*BS*cough* Sega reps were spreading that around until MS caught wind of that. The WinCE SDK actually had better 3D performance than Sega's, as I recall.
>because they didn't come up with DirectX for CE.
Also BS, it had a fairly complete implementation of DX5.
>(It's part of the reason they use Embedded XP in the X-Box
Xbox uses Embedded XP because t
Re:DREAMCAST! (Score:4, Insightful)
have to come up with an SH4 emulator as this is for ARM/XScale versions of CE only, along with some way of emulating the behavior of a PowerVR chip because they didn't come up with DirectX for CE (It's part of the reason they use Embedded XP in the X-Box...).
Actually, DirectX has been a part of Windows CE for years now. It was originally part of Windows CE 2.12 with the optional DirectX Pak add-on, and available built in inside of WinCE 3.0 and onwards. WinCE4 (WinCE.NET) made it more visible, and I think WinCE 5 now supports Direct3D (Mobile).
Windows *MOBILE* only acquired DirectX as of WinMo 5 (Magneto) (the reason was to support DirectShow for camera support rather than try to do a Video4Windows thing). Of course, they didn't take the CE version of DirectX, but ported DirectX from Windows XP. Big PITA when you're trying to write a driver that supports Windows CE (part of Windows Embedded) and Windows Mobile because of these differences in DirectX.
Here's a bit from the Microsoft Windows CE 5.0 documentation on say, DirectDrawCreate()
Requirements
OS Versions: Windows CE 2.12 and later. Version 2.12 requires DXPAK 1.0 or later.
Header: Ddraw.h.
Link Library: Ddraw.lib.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url