On Tue, 29 May 2007 07:39:55 -0600, Michael Kay <mike(_at_)saxonica(_dot_)com>
wrote:
(a) your browser vendor ships the necessary client-side software, in
which
case the world can move forwards only as fast as the slowest of the
browser
vendors, or
It's a horrible truth, but a truth none-the-less. Of course, in this case
we are refering to a browser with less than 1% market share on one side of
the equation (Opera/document function) and a browser at the other side of
the equation that still owns the lions share of the market, but in
reality, there are simple workarounds, one of which I believe is one more
the more cool solutions I've seen in a *long time. (speaking towards
Julian's response to David Carlisle's prompting)
(b) users are prepared to download and install software supplied by their
content providers, which opens up all sorts of manageability and security
issues and rather destroys most the benefits of having a thin client in
the
first place.
I *think* we're at a moment in history in that the security concerned have
been properly addressed by the vendors. Silverlight, for example,
represents a proper security model. So does Flash. But you're point
regarding the purpose of a thin client is a fair analysis, though the
question begs to be asked,
With broadband hoses, Gigahertz of processing power, and GIG's of RAM the
status quo, how thin is thin these days?
--
/M:D
M. David Peterson
http://mdavid.name | http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2354 |
http://dev.aol.com/blog/3155
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--