[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Claude L Bullard wrote:
> Why would one want to use a fat client on the web?
> Are these really fat clients?
Virtually *everyone* uses a "fat client" everytime they access
the Web. What the heck do you think Internet Explorer is? Are you
suggesting that it is "thin?" (No, it's one of the "fattest" clients
you can find...)
The question isn't whether something is fat or thin. The more
interesting thing to look at is what, if anything, causes people to be
uncomfortable about having more than a one or a small number of fat
clients on their desktops. Well, it turns out that fat clients
typically impose their own view of integration patterns, UI standards,
keyboard conventions, storage locations, etc. Fat clients are
law-makers... They are much more than "big" or "hard to install." Fat
clients are powerful in their effect on the eco-system of the desktop.
They define their environment rather than simply accept what is there.
This is the root of many of the "problems" that we have on the desktop
today and it is a source of much of the power that has been given to
Microsoft.
Given the "law giver" role of fat clients, the "thin client"
proponents basically give up control of the desktop to the fat client
builders (Microsoft, etc.) when they argue for thin clients. By
arguing against fat clients, you take yourself out of the collection
of people who might build or influence a law-giver. By doing so, you
empower those who build fat clients.
bob wyman
|
