For some reason I found the mess of acronyms hilarious. The only
actual words in there were "Unix" and "Bonobo" both of which are, in
a very loose sense, types of monkey.
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 09:32:06AM +1000, John Wiltshire kind of wrote:
>
> You are thinking of Distributed Component Object Model, not Component Object Model.
>It's actually a lot more complex than
> that.
>
> Macintosh Operating System -> Windows -> WM_USER -> Dynamic Data Exchange (Macintosh
>Operating System heritage)
> Dynamic Data Exchange -> Object Linking and Embedding version 1 -> Object Linking
>and Embedding version 2/Component Object Model. (Still no Unix)
> Remote Procedure Call -> Distributed Computing Environment -> Microsoft/Remote
>Procedure Call. (Unix heritage)
> Microsoft/Remote Procedure Call + Component Object Model + Common Object Request
>Broker Architecture -> Distributed Component Object Model
>
> However it is fairly clearly Component Object Model -> Bonobo, not Distributed
>Component Object Model -> Bonobo ((defun GNU (GNU is not Unix)) Network Object Model
>Environment
> already used Common Object Request Broker Architecture and switched to Bonobo
>because Common Object Request Broker Architecture didn't quite fit).
>
> Now given that Component Object Model had already evolved to Distributed Component
>Object Model by the time Bonobo was born
> you can argue a Unix heritage or not.
apologies for the pseudo-lisp. Gnome almost escaped my attention,
it's almost a real word.
Pedants may parse the above with
s/Unix/UNICS/g
s/UNICS/UNiplexed Information and Computing Service/g
at will, but are advised to do so only if they find that particularly
amusing.
> It's really not that important anyway.
thankfully :)
Conrad.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
