Tracy R Reed wrote:
Todd Walton wrote:
I don't think that's true. The only real obstacle left is based on
the fact that not many people are using Linux on the desktop. There
are no more technical considerations. I mean, what more do people
want?? What does Windows do that Linux doesn't???
Runs Microsoft Office. Runs WMV3 format movies. Runs tons of games.
Can purchase music from iTunes, Yahoo, and Napster.
That may all be true. That leaves only a lack of bandwidth and a lack of
games. 3d shooters will never work over a thin client setup until the
day comes when we have a ludicrous amount of bandwidth.
I wouldn't say that. "Thin" is a very subjective term.
The "thin" clients that everybody is saying will take over all seem to
be "thick" enough to run Javascript, web page layout, MPEG decoding,
full networking and store lots of stuff in a pretty big memory or disk
space.
Now, there *are* good reasons for having a "thin" client--especially in
a corporate space. There are also good reasons for thin in the consumer
space--you *can* offer a better end experience for inexperienced users.
However, I see very little evidence that this is the current intent.
As currently used, "thin client" is simply a euphemism for "you're not
allowed to own the software so we can vacuum money out of you forever."
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
