Talk:Distributed Component Object Model

message: I remember reading up into DCE several years ago, I found a lot of accusations on the web that Microsoft "hijacked" a lot of code from  DCE/RPC in "MSRPC" 
MSRPC is derived from the DCE 1.1 reference implementation, but has been copyrighted by Microsoft.  None of the UNIX vendors at the time wanted to implement DCE/RPC it at the time.
Later on, DCOM would be 'donated' by  MicroSoft to the Open Group as a marketing stunt. The "D" to COM was due to extensive use of DCE/RPC – more specifically Microsoft's enhanced version, known as MSRPC.  However, DCOM is pretty worthless without a bunch of application-level class libraries, such as ODBC, OLE DB, ADO, and ASP to run on top of it. Microsoft never released these specifications to the public, so these technologies have never been available for Unix.  DCOM was 'donated' to Open Group as a marketing stunt.
Shouldn't this issue be addressed somewhere?
:Sure - with the appropriate references, that would make a great addition to this article. Merenta (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any of that might be worth including if it is true but you should have something indicating it is true before proceeding. My impression is that most of what you are saying is inaccurate or wrong. Start by understanding the relevance of COM to DCOM. Sam Tomato (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft Controversy 

message: Apprently the .NET CLR is a DCOM object, refering to Windows Internals fifth edition, so how come .Net depreciate COM?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibo1978 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  DCOM is not depreciated in favor of .Net 

message: This article implies that Marshalling is (a proprietary) part of DCOM yet it also says that "DCE/RPC has strictly defined rules regarding marshalling". As far as I know, the marshalling is done by COM and is therefore not relevnat to DCOM. Sam Tomato (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marshalling 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Distributed Component Object Model. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091213022641/http://tcom.andjoin.com:80/ to http://tcom.andjoin.com
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think that COM is a representation of an abstract or concrete set of software interfaces and (when concrete) their implementations in code (and represented by a GUID (Global User IDentifier)). It has a similar binary representation as a C+ Class (in an .h Include file and a .cpp Instantiation file). DCOM adds an Index for mapping from a Method text name to the offset in the COM file (and a name/version for the object, like "NextPage.1"). Marshaling is the serialization, or conversion to text, of binary arguments. The DCOM implementation itself converts from text back to binary. All text is in 16-bit Unicode. I'm sure I have got some of this wrong, but COM and DCOM objects are much simpler than this article would suggest, with its pervasive use of Microsoft-coined words. DCOM has a set of development tools to make it easier to use than raw COM. DCOM objects can be called directly from script code. David Spector (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essential difference between COM and DCOM