> Transparent terminals unnecessarily increase computational power > required to render simple text. They make a fundamental application > harder for a computer to run. This makes the core program less > portable by raising the hardware requirements. The only gain is > (arguably) aesthetic. This, in short, is a completely braindead idea > of no practical value, unless you tend to use a computer in the manner > of someone who has been hit very hard in the head and has forgotten > entirely what computers do and what terminals are
So... Houses simply shelter us from weather. Automobiles simply transport us from point A to point B. Should we only live is sod huts? Should we only drive wooden go-carts? Of course, anything else is just a waste of resources, and computers are merely text processors. This is the most feeble argument I've ever heard. Also, you have severly contradicted yourself. Earlier you stated "You're begging the question of whether a transparent terminal is 'progress.' I submit that it isn't, and it's just stupid shit", but according to your description above, they have actually helped in creating the need for bigger, faster, more capable hardware. Maybe you don't understand how this works. That's progress, you see? If you prefer, the actual definition of progress: to grow or develop, as in complexity, scope, or severity; advance Anything you say from here forward is, well, just you trying to validate how smart you [think] you are. Keep your mouth shut and people won't know how dumb you are. Oops, lemme rephrase that seeing as your semantically retareded: keep from responding to email lists and people won't know how dumb you are. You are a joke. And a dumb joke at that.