http://www.osnews.com/story/13707/SkyOS_Gets_System_Windows_Forms Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:25:38 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif http://www.osnews.com http://osnews.com/thread?96558 http://osnews.com/thread?96558 I should say that is surprising... but looking back how fast some features got in SkyOS, I won't say that... =]

Great work, keep going! Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (JrezIN) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?96595 http://osnews.com/thread?96595 It will probably just go all Mono it being closed and all. Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Bonus) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?96651 http://osnews.com/thread?96651 It will probably just go all Mono it being closed and all.

What do you mean by that? The kernel is closed source indeed, but there is a good and consistent api to develop for skyos. You don't need kernel sources to write an instant messenger...

Mono being ported just gives SkyOS a tremendous advantage compared to other hobby operating systems concerning developpers and available applications. Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Darkness) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?96671 http://osnews.com/thread?96671 Adding functionality to *ANY* alternative OS is a good thing, regardless of whether it's open or closed.

I love the open source model, but I don't believe it should be the ABSOLUTE benchmark of a project's value or worth. True freedom in software entails not only a user's right to choose his/her environment, but also the right of a developer to choose which paradigm and/or license best suits their needs and wants.

Growth in any alternative OS is beneficial, as more complete feature sets make those OS's marketable to larger audiences. Marketability can lead to adoption, and adoption leads to diversification in global OS ecologies.......which is both FANTASTIC and DESIRED. Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Fusion) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?96673 http://osnews.com/thread?96673 ...lying around somewhere. I should try installing it on my son's IBM. It never worked on my home-grown PC.

Supposedly since I paid for the beta copy (twice actually because I could not remember my password to their forums) I should receive the V1.0 copy. Unfortunately I've moved across the country since then so they will not have my new address and I will have to pay for it AGAIN because it has been many months since I've logged onto their forums and I've probably forgotten my password again and lost any paper it was written on in the move. Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Tuishimi) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?96685 http://osnews.com/thread?96685 I'll burn a +mod point on this one.

Very insightful. Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Kelly Rush) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?96686 http://osnews.com/thread?96686 If you just contact Robert or myself and provide us with a copy of your PayPal transaction, we will gladly get your password changed for you. Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Kelly Rush) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?96724 http://osnews.com/thread?96724 The screen shot on SkyOS looks better than mono samples on linux! Winforms for Mono on Linux and particularly on Mac is a non-starter for professional work, it is very buggy and the look is terrible particularly on Linux. Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (snowflake) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?96739 http://osnews.com/thread?96739 All you have to do is:
export MONO_THEME=clearlooks
and you get the same look on Linux.

And, the bugs will be elimnated in the next months. Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (xenomorph) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?96765 http://osnews.com/thread?96765 Does this mean we'll eventually see some of the Windows Home Digital Recorder type applications ported soon? Personally I'm hoping that SkyOS will be supporting my Hauppauge 878, 848 and 881 WinTV cards soon. I'd imagine given how sweet the previews we've seen in the past are that a SkyOS PVR DVR would run great!

--bornagainpenguin Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (bornagainenguin) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?96773 http://osnews.com/thread?96773 Instead of porting .NET to every other OS, OS developers must create there own clean, easier to use development framework. Developers of other OS's are themselves giving Microsoft chance(s) to dominate on them. Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (microFawad) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?96806 http://osnews.com/thread?96806 Never used SkyOS but I have to say it's beginning to look evry impressive. Might need to install it on VMWare and give it a whirl. Fri, 17 Feb 2006 19:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (robojerk) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?96808 http://osnews.com/thread?96808 I know this is flamebait - but I must respond.

There really is nothing inherently "Microsoft-only" about .NET and the C# language. If you look at the class structure, it matches Java more than it does anything else.

Windows.Forms IS somewhat microsoft-centric, but .NET and Mono do not require this for development. You can just as easily write your software using GTK# and then have all windows users install GTK# in order to use your software. Windows.Forms compatibility on other OSes just makes it easier to write cross-platform software like Java is capable of.

Also, a clarification, this is not a port of .NET - it is a port of Mono - which is a 100% re-implementation of the .NET CLR, c# compiler, and .NET class libraries. That is kinda like saying that GCC is a port of Microsoft's Visual C++ compiler - or open-source Java VM's are a port of Sun's JVM.Edited 2006-02-17 19:59 Fri, 17 Feb 2006 19:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (umccullough) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?96834 http://osnews.com/thread?96834 I would say to Robert et al, start migrating your apps over to Mono/WinForms and away from the C code. I'd once seen the file manager code, and it made way too many system calls to shell commands... this is what APIs are for ;-) Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (zephc) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?96896 http://osnews.com/thread?96896 "Windows.Forms compatibility on other OSes just makes it easier to write cross-platform software like Java is capable of."

The big problem is that Java's often lampooned for being substandard as far as that goes for GUI applications, and .net is even worse. Windows.forms will make the application look good in windows, bad everywhere else. gtk# will make it look good on linux, so-so on windows, and horrid on osx if it even runs. wx#, never been able to even run at all on any linux distro I've tried it on.

C# had the potential to be 'the' answer to crossplatform development in a reasonably fast language, but, sadly, it's not. Fri, 17 Feb 2006 23:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Emerson) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?96925 http://osnews.com/thread?96925 You are calling .net C#, people need to understand there are many languages for .net, C# is just the most common. Boo is probably the best of the languages - the .net platform allows much easier language development. This way you can focus on language usability, features, and syntax niceness, with a fairly fast backend (Boo code is as fast as C#)

There is nothing stopping someone from creating a truely cross platofrm .net gui. I can imagine it being quite nice. XML based, and rather than setting pixel sizes, etc you just create a hierarchy of components. You establish interrelations like this component is on the border of this component, etc. The layout is created based on the target gui/theme. This way it looks right in native guis. Windows support would be easiest - just access System.Windows.Forms. Sat, 18 Feb 2006 01:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Botty) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?96938 http://osnews.com/thread?96938 Or even - if developers are nice enough to separate presentation layers from functionality - each OS could have native .NET bindings for GUI - and developers can write .NET code that directly works with each OS as necessary... of course this is a lot more work for the OS vendor, AND for the developer, but it's a heck of a lot better than having every OS with a completely different development platform as the original poster suggested. Sat, 18 Feb 2006 02:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (umccullough) Comments