Thin vs. Rich Clients

Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by Peyomp, Jan 14, 2006.

  1. Peyomp

    Peyomp New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,017
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thin clients can lick my balls. I cannot abide them. Rich is better. I am brutus, and I have spoken.

    Seriously, I really don't like the whole thin client thing. An app with a rich client will be much better, if it is done well, exploiting the full capabilities of the operating system/platform. None of the stuff people build with thin clients is particularly interesting to me. None of it is very elegant, in terms of the application itself. Sometimes the data accessed is great, but the client is usually non-plus material. I really, really don't want to work with thin clients.

    That being said, gmail rocks. But email is a simple application that works fairly well with a thin client. Those are not interesting to me.

    I'm tired of the thin client hype. I want rich client hype. Talk about Eclipse. Someone give me a job, please. Doing Rich Clients.
     
  2. dorkultra

    dorkultra OT's resident crohns dude OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    22,754
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    yinzer / nilbog, trollhio
    oh come on, you don't like the thin clients they had at the public library in the mid 90's? they had a green screen that only showed text.
    i don't think they were a true thin client though, probably just a dumb terminal
     
  3. Aimless

    Aimless Resident drunkey

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2001
    Messages:
    2,534
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Meh, I hear you but thin clients are so much easier to maintain/update/support
     
  4. Penguin Man

    Penguin Man Protect Your Digital Liberties

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2002
    Messages:
    21,696
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Edmonton, AB
    I'm waiting for Google to start selling GMail appliances. My office needs one.
     
  5. EvilSS

    EvilSS New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    STL
    I think he means software thin "clients", not thin-client hardware (SBC). At least I hope so otherwise he's on the pipe again.
     
  6. Peyomp

    Peyomp New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,017
    Likes Received:
    0
    :rofl: You see a dash? Thin vs. Rich. Where's the SBC connection?
     
  7. EvilSS

    EvilSS New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    STL
    SBC = server based computing AKA Citrix/Terminal Server.
     
  8. Peyomp

    Peyomp New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,017
    Likes Received:
    0
  9. EvilSS

    EvilSS New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    STL
    and what, you asked, I answered. Put the pipe down and take three steps back.
     
  10. Peyomp

    Peyomp New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,017
    Likes Received:
    0
    Contribute to my thread, motherfucker.
     
  11. EvilSS

    EvilSS New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    STL
    I did in my first post.
     
  12. Peyomp

    Peyomp New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,017
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, you just correctly identified the topic, which is only the first step to contributing ;)
     
  13. EvilSS

    EvilSS New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    STL
    OK then, you're full of it. Thin client software rocks . Much better than "rich" clients. Less overhead, less crap, less chances for the programmer to fuck it up beyond belief.
     

Share This Page