Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when ianm / activestate.com (Ian MacLean) would write:
> Chris Gehlker <gehlker / fastq.com> wrote in message news:<B9756F6C.1FA0A%gehlker / fastq.com>...
>> As part of my crusade to make Ruby an automation language I read up a little
>> on COM. Microsoft and a few others claim that they have COM for most *nixen.
>> I don't remember it from my Linux days, but could they be right or is this
>> wishful thinking. I don't want to reinvent the wheel I Win32OLE really runs
>> everywhere or could be easily adapted to do so. On the other hand, its name
>> implies it doesn't.
>> 
>> 
>> Anybody have the real story on Unix COM?
>
> here is an old link from 1997 when it looked like Microsoft was
> actually going to implement COM on unix's
> (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-276190.html?legacy=cnet ). However it
> looks like that never really eventuated. Still .Net is the successor
> to COM in many ways and it looks like there will be at least one .Net
> implementation on the various unix's ( mono or rotor ).

The "ActiveX everywhere" thing got soundly booed out as a result of
the desperate security issues.  (Probably other technical issues too.)

There actually is a "publicly available" way of getting at COM code;
you can get source code licenses from The Open Group.  At a hefty
price.
-- 
(concatenate 'string "aa454" "@freenet.carleton.ca")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/corba.html
"Consistency requires you to be as  ignorant today as  you were a year
ago."  -- Bernard Berenson