DCOM's package description. DCOM's danger.I studied Microsoft's DCOM. It's a lesser hack of Sun Java technology (which Microsoft patently attempted to steal, hide, and destroy). Object interfacing. (ie, apple's corba) It came out predictably much later than Java.
While I think it's great to provide support or alternates for PATENDED material like DCOM. Surely it was allot of work I appreciate that.
I think it's misleading to sweepingly say "virtually unlimited configuration and customization. What isn't? "Users and client programs can even create sandboxes on the fly" "for use with linux Makefiles." (how is dcom related to unix Makefiles again ??)
Who knows a DCOM copy cat would probably bring yet another Microsoft lawsuit toward linux. Microsoft has often stole the X of Xerox Windows (ie, X-box which did not use any X technology, while sony ps3 does or did). That DOESN'T mean microsoft won't try to sue if it's the other way around. Doesn't anyone remember "lindows"? Wishing to make computing ubiquitous? That linux team got sued and LOST in court. Remember anyone?
What I mean is: "Baby steps toward DCOM?" Yea. But is this baby a 500lb Gorilla baby?It's SURELY against Debian Rules to write incorrect package descriptions. DCOM doesn't provide sandboxes.
Description: see Microsoft for copyright material on DCOM's purpose, function, form, and compatibility. repeating it out of band could be infringement.
I'm sorry. Microsoft "paid to make it" (or said they did) and they don't wish to share it, am I not completely correct?
That's life I'm not saying I like it or not. Nothing to like or not like about object interfaces after all (security lapses aside).
v3c-dcom provides a plug-in system as an alternative COM implementation.Unlike COM, v3c-dcom encourages the use of "sandboxes" of registered plug-ins,