Microsoft Open-Sources Windows Bridge For iOS 48
An anonymous reader writes: Previously known as Project Islandwood, Microsoft today released an early version of Windows Bridge for iOS, a set of tools that will allow developers to port iOS apps to Windows. The announcement reads in part: "We're releasing the iOS bridge as an open-source project under the MIT license. Given the ambition of the project, making it easy for iOS developers to build and run apps on Windows, it is important to note that today's release is clearly a work-in-progress — some of the features demonstrated at Build are not yet ready or still in an early state. Regardless, we'd love for the interested and curious to look at the bridge, and compare what we're building with your app's requirements. And, for the really ambitious, we invite you to help us by contributing to the project, as community contributors — with source code, tests, bug reports, or comments. We welcome any and all participation in building this bridge." The source code is available now on Github.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the OP was referring to Wine.
Re: (Score:1)
which works quite nicely.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
If you have actually used it to run a windows app, you would know IT TOTALLY SUCKS. Yes, the app may 'run', either partially or fully, but it's worse than even a Java app. It sure as hell ain't 'ported' to the OS.
You only use Wine if you are too lazy to bother pirating Windows to run in a VM.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't run anything that was built using Wine (as far as I know) since back in the day of WordPerfect.
I have run many Windows applications in Wine though. many of them are quite usable. Not perfect.. but usable. Wine can be a useful tool as opposed to the kind of tool that posts "IT TOTALLY SUCKS" comments.
Re: (Score:1)
I wasn't aware they were either.
Re: Backfire (Score:1)
Small correction, and I speak from first hand experience. The employees are not buying them, Msft keeps shoveling these at employees as Christmas gifts and so on.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Backfire (Score:1)
Here here
I miss my Nokia greatly and my experience with my galaxy 5s has been awful! Unstable, slow, buggy, and needs restoring. Hmm isn't that the viewpoint of Windows phone here? I bet some have not used Windows since windows 98 and think it's still true today ... OK Windows 10 rivals Windows ME right in terms of bugs bUT that is the exception.
On your wife's Nokia try pinning inboxes and contacts? Notice how much easier it is to cut and paste for things like a bridge phone number and pin code together? On
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't see why so many are ragging on the WinPhone. How many here have actually used one?
Try getting a Lyft from a Windows Phone.
Blackberry OS is really nice too. Can't get a Lyft from there, either (except you can, with the Android emulation).
Re: (Score:1)
Seems a lot like OS/2.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Islandwood? (Score:2)
Wood gotten upon seeing the island's females?
API re-implementation (as in Oracle-vs-Google) ? (Score:1)
If I understand correctly,
Isn't Microsoft re-implementing Apple's API ?
In which case, based on Oracle vs Google [wikipedia.org] final's ruling, Microsoft is infringing on Apple's copyrightable code?
Openwashing (Score:1)
https://igurublog.wordpress.co... [wordpress.com]
http://techrights.org/2015/06/... [techrights.org]
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/... [gnu.org]
When we call software "free", we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of "free speech", not "free beer".
Open Source predates Free Software (Score:3)
Open Source protects users' rights. Free Software just protects them better. That doesn't mean Open Source is bad. It just means that you won't spring wood when you read the PR, like you would for Free Software.
I, too, prefer Free Software. But don't shit on Open Source. That's stupid and rude.
Re:Open source license and I'll go (Score:4, Insightful)
That would happen only if Microsoft took your code, modified it and created closed source proprietary software with it. Your original code would still be available to you but not the closed source changes made by Microsoft. It seems you're more concerned that someone will profit off your work, while you won't see any money. So you prefer the GPL license so that developers don't make any money, only distributors/packagers, sysadmins and users profit.
Re: (Score:3)
Cough up your software with an open source GPL license, and I'll go. Mickeysoft's crap licenses are shit. My time goes either to something that I can use as I like or share with others freely. I don't want something that I develop locked up in a vault in Redmond, and some ass hole tell me I can't use software or source code that I wrote. And that's it.
MIT [wikipedia.org] is a GPL compatible license originating at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like the re-implementation of the Apple APIs is open source but their fork of the clang/llvm stack is not (although that makes sense since they are basically wiring their code generation backend into clang and publishing the source code for talking to c2.dll isn't exactly something Microsoft is going to do)
Hypocrisy, thy name is Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it funny that Microsoft basically just "stole" Apple's APIs, especially since Microsoft themselves were arguing that API's should be copyrightable in the Google v. Oracle case.