[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#652432: Acknowledgement (ITP: v3c-dcom -- Baby steps to DCOM)

On 18/12/11 20:50, John D. Hendrickson and Sara Darnell wrote:
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.
You forgot to mention DCE.

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.
It's being used in Samba on Linux now. Not forgetting Wine.

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 ??)
The package provides a plug-in system. Each plug-in file contains two dictionaries,
one mapping ProdIDs to GUIDS and another mapping GUIDS to plug-in filenames.
I don't recall saying "for use with linux Makefiles.", please include the relevant text.

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?
Qt provides a plug-in system but it's system-wide and shared between programs and users.

v3c-dcom provides the same system but inside a file, and programs and users can choose
to share them by specifying their path in an environment variable.
There's not much to v3c-dcom, and it really could become part of a boot loader.

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.
v3c-dcom provides a library to allow anyone to create a sandbox - it's a file.

Description: see Microsoft for copyright material on DCOM's purpose, function, form, and compatibility. repeating it out of band could be infringement.
Again, Samba, Wine.

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?
Then there's ATL - the C++ wrapper. I deliberately limited myself to the contents of "Inside ATL" Copyright© 1999 by George Shepherd, Brad King, ISBN 1-57231-858-9.

Yes, it states that "No part of the contents of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the written permission of the publisher." and that's
Microsoft Press.

If you think about it, I broke copyright right there, by telling you how I broke copyright! There is an aspect of copyright law that allows people to discuss and communicate their opinions on published works, by making reference to them, and their contents.

Oh and, by the way, you can't reference anything you read in this email.
Hell, you can't even read it.
We're all free to voice legal-sounding mumbo-jumbo that will never see a court room.

Here in Ireland there's a company called UPC and they state in some legaleze document
I read somewhere, something along the lines of
"non-UPC equipment cannot be connected to the UPC TV outlet".

How about a TV then?

Believe it or not there are libraries for sale that you have to sign a non-disclosure agreement for before you can even read the documentation. And they don't have snippet galleries, discussion forums, help groups learning centres that are two clicks away from a web search.

I think that's called due diligence, but I'm not at liberty to discuss it.

There comes a point when discussions reference other discussions and the subject matter becomes so widely discussed on the web that it enters the public domain, and someone who hasn't bought or read about the subject from a privileged source can become quite
knowledgeable about it.

And so to the crux of the matter,
I wrote v3c-dcom firstly because I think it's a really neat plug-in system.
I used Microsoft's naming scheme as it may be familiar with some software developers.

I could change all the names by adding an "idily" at the end - CoCreateInstanceExIdily() - would that be OK? Then someone would publish a header file to #define them back so
they could compile their code on Windows and Linux.

If you like, I can change the projects name to "v3c-dcomidily".

I hope you're getting the point by now.

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,
Philip Ashmore

Reply to: