Linked by mufasa on Mon 10th Aug 2009 12:25 UTC
Web 2.0 The web browser has been the dominant thin client, now rich client, for almost two decades, but can it compete with a new thin client that makes better technical choices and avoids the glacial standards process? I don't think so, as the current web technology stack of HTML/Javascript/Flash has accumulated so many bad decisions over the years that it's ripe for a clean sheet redesign to wipe it out.
Thread beginning with comment 377901
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Thanks for wasting my time
by zimbatm on Mon 10th Aug 2009 13:54 UTC
zimbatm
Member since:
2005-08-22

To the author:

Don't write articles where a *nice sun shines trough the clouds and will guide you to the path of salvation* . I want F***ing TECHNICAL details. Such a time waste.. (making it worse by commenting).

Just try one thing : remove the terms thin and fat client in the article. This will force you to be much more specific.

Cheers,
zimbatm

Reply Score: -1

RE: Thanks for wasting my time
by Laurence on Mon 10th Aug 2009 14:05 in reply to "Thanks for wasting my time"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

To the author: Don't write articles where a *nice sun shines trough the clouds and will guide you to the path of salvation* . I want F***ing TECHNICAL details. Such a time waste.. (making it worse by commenting). Just try one thing : remove the terms thin and fat client in the article. This will force you to be much more specific. Cheers, zimbatm


I modded you down because of your use of language - it was totally unnecessary.

Suggestion: If you're that unhappy with this article then could always write a follow up piece instead of swearing at those that bothered to give up their own free time for you.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Thanks for wasting my time
by _df_ on Mon 10th Aug 2009 14:19 in reply to "RE: Thanks for wasting my time"
_df_ Member since:
2005-07-06

the problem is, anyone can come up with ideas but wishing does not make it so.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Thanks for wasting my time
by dagw on Tue 11th Aug 2009 07:09 in reply to "RE: Thanks for wasting my time"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

If you're that unhappy with this article then could always write a follow up piece

This article is like writing an article saying we should switch to cold fusion plants for at least 50% of our power needs sometime within the next 20 years. Without a detailed technical description of how these plants can actually be built the article doesn't say much.

Also writing a follow up piece is kind of pointless since all it would say "sure, but how?"

Reply Parent Score: 2