Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 8th Oct 2005 18:57 UTC
Google Google co-founder Sergey Brin has quashed speculation that the giant ad broker is to introduce a web-based Office suite. "We don't have any plans," he told Web 2.0 conference organizer John Battelle. However Brin left the door open a little. Documents would be easier to work with in the future, he promised, but he didn't think a fat client was the way to go.
Thread beginning with comment 42099
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: eww
by ormandj on Sun 9th Oct 2005 04:54 UTC in reply to "eww"
ormandj
Member since:
2005-10-09

Why? Have you ever done IT administration in a large corporate environment? Keeping all the machines running the same (updated) software, keeping everybody virus free, handling all the network mounts, maintaining all the machines, doing installs/provisioning, etc - IS ONE BIG MESS.

How this _could_ solve that problem? Thin clients around the room with access to only the online applications provided (can we say no more websurfing/solitare at work?) I hate to sound like an access nazi, but there is large quantities non-productivity from people blasting around the net when they shouldn't be, playing games of solitare, and whatever else. Sure, you can setup firewalls to block this and that, but you're just delaying the inevitible. Somebody will setup some kind of proxy, or who knows what, and circumvent everything.

You're stuck trying to keep everybody's OS synchronized, patched, updated, all of the applications too, and whatever else. With thin clients that becomes a simple activity. You just update the server cluster. Now your time is freed up from trying to fix who-knows-what-issue on who-knows-whos computer, and can spend that time making sure the server cluster is up to date, and the network is running well. That is a _heck_ of a lot easier, a _heck_ of a lot better, and would save unmentionable amounts of time all around the office, in things you wouldn't even imagine. Now you'll say: but I have X package automatically doing Y thing and blah blah blah. Whatever. I've done that too. It's still a headache, some patches still break some things, viruses get downloaded, people do this and that, there is no foolproof way of doing things correctly with everybody sitting at a full-blown computer. What, yank the cd drives so they can't keep bringing in livecds? Grr.

That being said, it's not really there yet (the implimentation/technology or possibly both.) We're getting awfully close, however, and I am very much looking forward to it - as a business owner who handles administrative duties, with 2500 client pcs. I've already gotten a lot of the functionality for the business on the intranet, as web apps, I'm just waiting on something to come along as an online-office-app. Just about everything else is *already there*.

Cheers.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: eww
by on Sun 9th Oct 2005 05:14 in reply to "RE: eww"
Member since:

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I'm all for thin clients. I'm just saying this isn't the best way to accomplish that goal. Let's compare web-based apps versus complete remote access:
web-based:
1) every app needs to be recoded to benefit
2) completely different interface compared to normal apps
3) much harder to code
4) disintegrated from everything else

remote access:
1) apps do not need to be changed to benefit
2) familiar interface
3) just as easy to code
4) completely integrated

This means that 1) employees don't have to be retrained to use it and 2) it's easier to manage.

-bytecoder

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: eww
by on Sun 9th Oct 2005 13:16 in reply to "RE[2]: eww"
Member since:

"1) apps do not need to be changed to benefit
2) familiar interface
3) just as easy to code
4) completely integrated "

Considering that there's going to be retraining for those moving to a F/OSS solution anyway...

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: eww
by on Mon 10th Oct 2005 04:59 in reply to "RE[2]: eww"
Member since:

This means that 1) employees don't have to be retrained to use it

What retraining? It's a web app. People are used to using different web apps.

and 2) it's easier to manage.

Remote display access is easier to manage? I can't see how. Web sites with application-like features already handle tens of thousands of users gracefully (pending network speed and processor/RAM; the same thing remote desktop displays suffer much more from).

I get the feeling that you're making an argument with some built-in preferences/biases ... kind of like the IE users kept arguing that nobody needs all those complex tabs found in Opera and Firefox/Mozilla ... and that the task bar can handle things in a superior manner.

The good news is that in 6 months, you'll think that dropping remote access for the more sophisticaed web apps that have come out reciently was your idea.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: eww
by Pasha on Sun 9th Oct 2005 08:49 in reply to "RE: eww"
Pasha Member since:
2005-07-06

Oracle did it with NC some years ago. it failed.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: eww
by on Sun 9th Oct 2005 13:12 in reply to "RE: eww"
Member since:

So basically the push for thin-clients is because of Windows poor design. Well we can also thank them for the push towards ever beefier hardware, and the "Spaceheater" phenomenon.

Reply Parent Score: 0