Jetstar unveils thin client, BYO laptop vision

[keithr]

Kwyjibo wrote:

keithr wrote:
Kwyjibo wrote:
Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2009-09-10, Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:

Nothing wrong with using thin clients, but all
these people re-inventing the wheel and then pretending or even
claiming something 'new' is quite pathetic, IMHO.
Name one thin client that provided a remote GUI capability back in
the 80's, stupid.
Anything that ran "X window system".
Anything? We're talking about 'thin' clients here, not workstations.

While there might have been a miniscule number of them in places
like MIT or DEC labs in the VERY late 80s, X-Terminals certainly
weren't even close to common until the 90s.
The ANU had a bunch of them in the mid 1980s

It wasn't until feb 1990 that I actually got my hands on a thin
client though. (It was a re-purposed sun3)
A Sun3 could NEVER be called 'thin' unless you ran over it with a
steam roller.
Physically definitely not, logically they were thin.

And this discussion was about physically thin clients - Hence the discussion
starting off with Wyse terminals.

Thin clients are so called because they are physically thin? ROFL

Are you injecting some weird humour or do you really believe that?

 

[Gary R. Schmidt]

Kwyjibo wrote:
[SNIP]

X Windows isn't a thin client. An X Terminal is but they weren't generally
available until the 90s.

I must have been hallucinating about all those Labtam X terminals I
worked on back in the 1980s - M68K- and then i860- and i960- based.

There's no way that Kwyj could be wrong about anything, could there?
(Maybe it's started channelling Rod Speed these days - who could believe
that someone *else* could be so wrong at such length!)

Cheers,
Gary B-)

 

[terryc]

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:57:58 +1000, Kwyjibo wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:26:13 +1000, Kwyjibo wrote:


X Windows isn't a thin client. An X Terminal is but they weren't
generally available until the 90s.

The word "generally" is not a qualifier I believe was initially used.
Some of us used "X terminals" in the 70's.

LOL.
So you powered them on and waited (at least) 4 years for something to
connect to?

No, actually in my case I had to write the frigging program.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"Gary R. Schmidt" wrote:

Kwyjibo wrote:
[SNIP]
X Windows isn't a thin client. An X Terminal is but they weren't generally
available until the 90s.

I must have been hallucinating about all those Labtam X terminals I
worked on back in the 1980s - M68K- and then i860- and i960- based.

There's no way that Kwyj could be wrong about anything, could there?
(Maybe it's started channelling Rod Speed these days - who could believe
that someone *else* could be so wrong at such length!)

'Speed' is an amateur compared to this idiot:


Abbey Somebody <abnormal@castlefrankenstein.org>
AnimalMagic <AnimalMagic@petersbackyard.org>
Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org>
AwlSome Auger <AwlSomeAuger@BuyOneGetOneFree.org>
Bart! <B@rt_The_Sheriff_Is_A_Nig**!.org>

BigBalls <BiggestBallsOfAll@thebigbarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Bungalow Bill <BugalowBill@AbbeyRoad.UKCOM>
Capt. Cave Man <ItIsSoEasyACaveManCanDoIt@upyers.org>
ChairmanOfTheBored <RUBored@crackasmile.org>
Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
<theslipperman@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>

DarkMatter <DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Corbomite Carrie <Corbomite@maneuver.org>
DarkSucker <DarkSucker@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Do I really need to say? <rael@thescree.org>
Dorothy with the Red Shoes on <Dorothy@notinkansas.org>

Dr. Heywood R. Floyd <Heywood@thebarattheendofthemonolith.org>
FatBytestard <FatBytestard@somewheronyourharddrive.org>
FunkyPunk FieldEffectTrollsistor <FunkShunPoignter@yermomma.org>
FunkyPunk FieldEffectTrollsistor <FunkShunPointer@yermomma.org>
GoldIntermetallicEmbrittlement
<GoldIntermetallicEmbrittlement@youdontknowjack.org>

Hattori Hanzo <OutintheSnow@billsbackyard.org>
Herbert John \Jackie\" Gleason" <BufordTJustice@Texarkanacops.gov>
HiggsField <higgdfield@whutthableapduyoukno.org>
IAmTheSlime <TheSlimeFromYourVideo@oozingacrossyourlivingroomfloor.org>
ItsASecretDummy <secretasianman@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>

Kai <kai@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
LargeMarge <LargeMarge@thetentwoposition.org>
life imitates life <pasticcio@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
MadManMoon <TheWholePlanetIsMine@hereandnow.org>
MakeNoAttemptToAdjustYourSet <DoNotAttemptToAdjustYourSet@anytime.org>

MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org
<MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Mr.Eko <ekointhedirt@lostisland.org>
Mr. Haney <mrhaney@thebarattheendofthefarmroad.org>
Mycelium <myceliumgrows@underyourshrooms.org>
Neanderthal <dance@gottafindawomanrighton.org>

Phat Bytestard <PhatBytestard@getinmahharddrive.org>
RoyLFuchs <RoyLFuchs@urfargingicehole.org>
scorpius
<scorpius@thewormholethatemptiesontheothersideoftheuniverse.org>
SkyPilot <somewhere@theedgeofspace.org>
SomeKindOfWonderful
<SomeKindOfWonderful@allthegirlsintheworldbeware.org>

Son of a Sea Cook <NotaBrewster@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
SoothSayer <SaySooth@TheMonastery.org>
Spurious Response <SpuriousResponse@cleansignal.org>
StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt <Zarathustra@thusspoke.org>
Sum Ting Wong <SumTingWong@thebarattheendoftheVenusianLightnigBolt.org>

Sum Ting Wong
<SumTingWong@thebarattheendoftheVenusianLightnigBoltmonolith.org>
SuspendedInGaffa <suspendedingaffa@kateshouse.org>
The Great Attractor
<SuperM@ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org>
TheGlimmerMan <justaglimmer@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
TheJoker <LeonardooftheLarcenousLaugh@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>

TheKraken <ReachUpandSuckYouDowntotheDepths@yup.org>
The Last Mimsy <mimsy@TheOtherSideoftheLookingGlass.org>
TheQuickBrownFox <thequickbrownfox@overthelazydog.org>
TutAmongUs@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org
<TutAmongUs@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
UltimatePatriot <UltimatePatriot@thebestcountry.org>

UpGrade <UpGrade@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
ValleyGirl <LuvYerNailz@LikeIWouldGiveIt.Comeon>
VioletaPachydermata <PurpleElephant@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
WallyWallWhackr <wallywallwhackr@thematrixattheendofthemushroomstem.org>

plus other sock puppets.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

 

[Kwyjibo]

keithr wrote:

Kwyjibo wrote:
keithr wrote:
Kwyjibo wrote:
Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2009-09-10, Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:

Nothing wrong with using thin clients, but all
these people re-inventing the wheel and then pretending or even
claiming something 'new' is quite pathetic, IMHO.
Name one thin client that provided a remote GUI capability back
in the 80's, stupid.
Anything that ran "X window system".
Anything? We're talking about 'thin' clients here, not
workstations. While there might have been a miniscule number of them in
places
like MIT or DEC labs in the VERY late 80s, X-Terminals certainly
weren't even close to common until the 90s.
The ANU had a bunch of them in the mid 1980s

It wasn't until feb 1990 that I actually got my hands on a thin
client though. (It was a re-purposed sun3)
A Sun3 could NEVER be called 'thin' unless you ran over it with a
steam roller.
Physically definitely not, logically they were thin.

And this discussion was about physically thin clients - Hence the
discussion starting off with Wyse terminals.

Thin clients are so called because they are physically thin? ROFL

Care to point out where I said any such thing, stupid?

Are you injecting some weird humour or do you really believe that?

Try learning about a little thing called 'context'. The discussion was about
single purpose, thin client devices - Not workstations or full blown
computers being used as this clients.


--
Kwyj.

 

[Andy]

keithr wrote:

Kwyjibo wrote:
Crap.
Users have the same permissions on a virtual desktop as they have on a
physical PC. It's all dependent on how the OS has been configured (user
permissions, group policies etc.) and has SFA to do with how the OS is
accessed.


So the user can just slip in a CD or a DVD and load a new application of
their choosing at will?

Only an extremely poorly managed corporate environment would have
regular users with permissions to install 'new applications of their
choosing', regardless of the use of thin/fat clients.

--
Registered Linux User #478766
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

 

[Frank Slootweg]

Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:

Frank Slootweg wrote:
Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:
Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2009-09-10, Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:

Nothing wrong with using thin clients, but all
these people re-inventing the wheel and then pretending or even
claiming something 'new' is quite pathetic, IMHO.

Name one thin client that provided a remote GUI capability back in
the 80's, stupid.

Anything that ran "X window system".

Anything? We're talking about 'thin' clients here, not workstations.

"Anything" is indeed an overstatement, but there is no reason to
*exclude* 'workstations' as possible thin clients, i.e. not all
workstations are/can_be thin clients, but some are/can_be. We're
getting warmer!


See the earlier references to Wyse - We are talking about single purpose,
physically thin clients.
Workstations don't even come close.

No, 'we' weren't talking about single purpose (only) and certainly not
about physically thin clients, and neither were *you* (If you think
otherwise then cite.)! So please don't dream up stuff as you go along.

While there might have been a miniscule number of them in places
like MIT or DEC labs in the VERY late 80s, X-Terminals certainly
weren't even close to common until the 90s.

Agreed.

It wasn't until feb 1990 that I actually got my hands on a thin
client though. (It was a re-purposed sun3)

A Sun3 could NEVER be called 'thin' unless you ran over it with a
steam roller.

We were talking about *computers*, so what has Sun got to do with
anything!?

Trivia question: Which company created the first Sun OS?

Dunno. If it wasn't Sun it probably would have been AT&T.

It was HP. Sun OS was a micro-kernel which ran HP's UNIX
implementation (HP-UX) on the HP 9000 Series 500. (It also ran another
OS.)

 

[Kwyjibo]

Frank Slootweg wrote:

Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:
Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:
Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2009-09-10, Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:

Nothing wrong with using thin clients, but all
these people re-inventing the wheel and then pretending or even
claiming something 'new' is quite pathetic, IMHO.

Name one thin client that provided a remote GUI capability back
in the 80's, stupid.

Anything that ran "X window system".

Anything? We're talking about 'thin' clients here, not
workstations.

"Anything" is indeed an overstatement, but there is no reason to
*exclude* 'workstations' as possible thin clients, i.e. not all
workstations are/can_be thin clients, but some are/can_be. We're
getting warmer!


See the earlier references to Wyse - We are talking about single
purpose, physically thin clients.
Workstations don't even come close.

No, 'we' weren't talking about single purpose (only) and certainly
not about physically thin clients, and neither were *you* (If you
think otherwise then cite.)!

Here's the first message in this thread that you replied to, you useless
bullshit artist.

"Wyse? I thought that they were dead years ago, Fujitsu bought them.
Maybe someone has done a Lazarus on the name. The thin clients look like
we are heading back into the days of green screen terminals, just with
some fancy graphics built in."

What did Wyse make their name manufacturing? Workstations?
Moron.

So please don't dream up stuff as you go
along.

Stop trying to rewrite history then, dickhead.

--
Kwyj.

 

[Frank Slootweg]

Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:

Frank Slootweg wrote:
Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:
Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:
Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2009-09-10, Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:

Nothing wrong with using thin clients, but all
these people re-inventing the wheel and then pretending or even
claiming something 'new' is quite pathetic, IMHO.

Name one thin client that provided a remote GUI capability back
in the 80's, stupid.

Anything that ran "X window system".

Anything? We're talking about 'thin' clients here, not
workstations.

"Anything" is indeed an overstatement, but there is no reason to
*exclude* 'workstations' as possible thin clients, i.e. not all
workstations are/can_be thin clients, but some are/can_be. We're
getting warmer!

[Non-response noted.]

See the earlier references to Wyse - We are talking about single
purpose, physically thin clients.
Workstations don't even come close.

No, 'we' weren't talking about single purpose (only) and certainly
not about physically thin clients, and neither were *you* (If you
think otherwise then cite.)!

Here's the first message in this thread that you replied to, you useless
bullshit artist.

"Wyse? I thought that they were dead years ago, Fujitsu bought them.
Maybe someone has done a Lazarus on the name. The thin clients look like
we are heading back into the days of green screen terminals, just with
some fancy graphics built in."

Nope! That was *part* of the message, not all of it (Free clue:
"[...]".). *And* I responded to *another* part. *And* I responded *in
context*. You might want to try that sometime!

So now you've added 'convenient' silent snipping to ad Hominem
attacks. What's next?

What did Wyse make their name manufacturing? Workstations?

Strawman.

Moron.

So please don't dream up stuff as you go
along.

Stop trying to rewrite history then, dickhead.

Don't you hate those damned reflecting display screen!?

PKB. QED. HTH. HAND. EOD. NK.