Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #12027 > unrolled thread

Chrome for Android does not support JAVA

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  Chrome for Android does not support JAVA "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> - 2012-02-15 20:50 +0800
    Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-15 09:57 -0800
      Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-15 17:13 -0700
    Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-02-15 19:21 -0500
      Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-15 18:37 -0700
    Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Rajiv Gupta <rajiv@invalid.com> - 2012-02-16 13:21 +1100
      Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-02-16 21:23 -0500
        Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Rajiv Gupta <rajiv@invalid.com> - 2012-02-17 21:52 +1100
          Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-17 10:22 -0800
          Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-02-17 21:49 -0500
      Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Fredrik Jonson <fredrik@jonson.org> - 2012-02-17 18:53 +0000
        Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-02-17 15:38 -0500
          Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-02-17 21:36 -0500
        Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2012-02-17 21:53 +0100
      Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> - 2012-04-01 12:36 +0800
        Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-04-01 07:33 -0700
          Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> - 2012-04-16 21:07 +0800
            Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-04-16 14:22 -0700
              Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> - 2012-04-17 06:36 +0800
                Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-16 19:59 -0400
                  Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-04-16 22:18 -0300
                    Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-16 21:53 -0400
    Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2012-04-01 13:39 -0500
      Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Thufir <hawat.thufir@gmail.com> - 2012-04-01 13:50 -0700
        Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2012-04-01 17:28 -0500
          Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Thufir <hawat.thufir@gmail.com> - 2012-04-01 17:14 -0700
        Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-01 20:16 -0400
          Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-04-01 21:40 -0300
            Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Thufir <hawat.thufir@gmail.com> - 2012-04-01 19:00 -0700
              Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Silvio Bierman <silvio@moc.com> - 2012-04-02 10:45 +0200
            Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-01 22:19 -0400
              Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-04-02 07:09 -0300
                Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-02 20:02 -0400
                  Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-04-02 20:41 -0700
                  Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2012-04-02 22:42 -0500
                    Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-04-03 08:13 -0700
                      Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-04-03 09:46 -0700
                        Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-03 19:42 -0400
                    Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-03 19:35 -0400
                      Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-04-03 17:04 -0700
                      Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA eric@invalid.com (EricF) - 2012-04-04 03:36 +0000
                        Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-04 19:35 -0400
                      Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-04-04 18:42 +0000
                      Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-04-04 18:42 +0000
      Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-01 20:20 -0400
        Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> - 2012-04-02 20:25 +0800
          Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Thufir <hawat.thufir@gmail.com> - 2012-04-02 08:44 -0700
            Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> - 2012-04-03 03:03 +0800
          Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-02 20:04 -0400
            Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> - 2012-04-09 08:49 +0800
      Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-04-01 22:49 -0700
        Re: Chrome for Android does not support JAVA Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-02 19:55 -0400

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#13603

On 12-04-16 08:59 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 4/16/2012 6:36 PM, Richard Maher wrote:
>> "Lew"<lewbloch@gmail.com>  wrote in message
>> news:16106106.159.1334611367345.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbcsi9...
>>> Richard Maher wrote:
>>>> My issue maybe as simple as jumping the gun on Java7. I thought it has
>>>> been
>>>> mainstream for yonks but it looks like it's still beta; is that
>>>> correct?
>>>
>>> No. Java 7 was released on 2011-07-07.
>>
>> Sounds more like it. I came across
>> http://www.java.com/en/download/faq/java7.xml and seeing Google
>> pushing 6.31
>> I got confused.
> 
> Java 6 is still being updated.
> 
> And there are probably still more on Java 6 than on Java 7.
> 
> Arne
> 
Java 7 is the first release of Java that I've had trepidation about
moving onto. A number of Java applications I use failed silently on 7:
no exceptions, just some commanded operation or the other wouldn't
happen. As soon as I pointed them back at 6 the apps worked perfectly OK.

I see from release notes that a number of these apps have fixed
*something* since last summer that lets them work with Java 7. On the
other hand, when I see an application release note that's worded like
"this now works with Java 7", and the timing of that note is shortly
after a Java 7 update, was it the app that got fixed, or Java? Short of
asking each and every one of these application teams what it was that
got fixed, which I don't have the time for, I'm assuming that it was Java.

I haven't seen a single enterprise customer that my company works with
move to Java 7 or express interest in moving onto 7. Given that the new
owner of Java didn't come out with a Java 7 capable WebLogic until
November 2011 (WebLogic 11g 10.3.6) I don't suppose that anyone who has
to deal with Java EE app servers or other middleware can be blamed for
being cautious.

AHS
-- 
A fly was very close to being called a "land," cause that's what they do
half the time.
-- Mitch Hedberg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13604

On 4/16/2012 9:18 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> On 12-04-16 08:59 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 4/16/2012 6:36 PM, Richard Maher wrote:
>>> "Lew"<lewbloch@gmail.com>   wrote in message
>>> news:16106106.159.1334611367345.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbcsi9...
>>>> Richard Maher wrote:
>>>>> My issue maybe as simple as jumping the gun on Java7. I thought it has
>>>>> been
>>>>> mainstream for yonks but it looks like it's still beta; is that
>>>>> correct?
>>>>
>>>> No. Java 7 was released on 2011-07-07.
>>>
>>> Sounds more like it. I came across
>>> http://www.java.com/en/download/faq/java7.xml and seeing Google
>>> pushing 6.31
>>> I got confused.
>>
>> Java 6 is still being updated.
>>
>> And there are probably still more on Java 6 than on Java 7.

> Java 7 is the first release of Java that I've had trepidation about
> moving onto. A number of Java applications I use failed silently on 7:
> no exceptions, just some commanded operation or the other wouldn't
> happen. As soon as I pointed them back at 6 the apps worked perfectly OK.
>
> I see from release notes that a number of these apps have fixed
> *something* since last summer that lets them work with Java 7. On the
> other hand, when I see an application release note that's worded like
> "this now works with Java 7", and the timing of that note is shortly
> after a Java 7 update, was it the app that got fixed, or Java? Short of
> asking each and every one of these application teams what it was that
> got fixed, which I don't have the time for, I'm assuming that it was Java.

It is well known that the first Oracle Java 7 shipped with an
optimization bug (Lucene bug) that were fixed in an update.

It could relate to that.

> I haven't seen a single enterprise customer that my company works with
> move to Java 7 or express interest in moving onto 7. Given that the new
> owner of Java didn't come out with a Java 7 capable WebLogic until
> November 2011 (WebLogic 11g 10.3.6) I don't suppose that anyone who has
> to deal with Java EE app servers or other middleware can be blamed for
> being cautious.

And WAS 8.5 is just recently out in beta.

JBoss 7 has supported SE 7 for at least a half year.

It will take 2-3 years before SE 6 will be "old" in the EE world.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13286

On 2/15/2012 6:50 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is anyone else gutted that the Chrome browser on Android will not support
> JAVA, Flash or any other pluggin?
>
> I thought Google and Android were big on JAVA?
>
> Cheers Richard Maher
>
>

I am starting to think that this whole idea of 'running applications
in the cloud' will never work as well as running an application
on the desktop.

If I see the same thing with a choice of an applet or a jar file
that I can download first and run on the PC, I now go for the jar
file choice.

The speed of the internet these days makes downloading things
not an issue any more.

People now think HTML5/Javascript is the next big thing, where
everyone will write their wonderful advanced 20 million lines
applications in HTML5 and Javascript.

May be for simple games and basic app this will work, but
for advanced applications where good and robust performance
is important, running things directly on the desktop/computer
will always be better than running things inside yet another
software application like the browser.

Bottom line, it is not a big deal for me not being able to run Java
inside the browser as long as I can run the same thing on the PC. It
will run better that way.

--Nasser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13287

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 13:39:43 -0500, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:


> People now think HTML5/Javascript is the next big thing, where everyone
> will write their wonderful advanced 20 million lines applications in
> HTML5 and Javascript.

You're assuming everyone has stable, non-infected pc's.  The whole point 
of the cloud, insofar as I can tell, to avoid annoying support calls 
which end in either "reboot" or "re-install".  

The beauty of AJAX, etc, is in terms of support.  It's a complex way of 
getting away from Windows, to which people will go to extraordinary 
lengths.


-Thufir

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13288

On 4/1/2012 3:50 PM, Thufir wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 13:39:43 -0500, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>
>
>> People now think HTML5/Javascript is the next big thing, where everyone
>> will write their wonderful advanced 20 million lines applications in
>> HTML5 and Javascript.
>

> You're assuming everyone has stable, non-infected pc's.  The whole point
> of the cloud,

I guess I used the wrong word. I did not mean to run things on
the server vs. on the desktop/pc.

I meant to run things in a browser vs. on the desktop/pc.

But I thought this was clear even though I used the word
'cloud' when may be I should have used RIA  (rich internet applications).
After all, I was talking about applets and HTML5 and  Javascript
all the time? These run in the browser, not on the server.

>insofar as I can tell, to avoid annoying support calls
> which end in either "reboot" or "re-install".
>

If the PC is 'bad', then applets/HTML5/javaScript/Flash/
pick_your_Browserplugins/ etc.. will also run bad.  After all,
the browser runs on the PC as well.
  
> The beauty of AJAX, etc, is in terms of support.  It's a complex way of
> getting away from Windows, to which people will go to extraordinary
> lengths.
>
> -Thufir

So, You want to run say, photoshop application, on the server using
AJAX so to get away from the PC? Do you think it will work as good
as running it on the PC?

I like my PC, and I do not want to get away from it.

--Nasser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13292

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 17:28:11 -0500, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:


> But I thought this was clear even though I used the word 'cloud' when
> may be I should have used RIA  (rich internet applications). After all,
> I was talking about applets and HTML5 and  Javascript all the time?
> These run in the browser, not on the server.

Maybe it's semantics, or maybe I have no idea what you're talking about.  
Either is equally likely ;)

When you say "run in the browser" does that mean you navigate to 
www.whatever.something?  Pardon, I guess, yeah, the server passes the 
processing off to the browser, but the code (or applet) itself resides 
server side.

My point was that if you call tech support they'll say "works from here" 
and tell you to re-install your OS or something.  Whether the processing 
is client or server side doesn't seem that much of a big deal(?), unless 
you have a slow computer.  It virtually eliminates version problems.

I suppose the "next" step will be to cache the js/whatever.  Hey, they re-
invented JWS!  Anyhow...

Is that what you mean buy RIA?  Yes, I'm too lazy to go wikipedia before 
posting this.


-Thufir

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13289

On 4/1/2012 4:50 PM, Thufir wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 13:39:43 -0500, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>> People now think HTML5/Javascript is the next big thing, where everyone
>> will write their wonderful advanced 20 million lines applications in
>> HTML5 and Javascript.
>
> You're assuming everyone has stable, non-infected pc's.  The whole point
> of the cloud, insofar as I can tell, to avoid annoying support calls
> which end in either "reboot" or "re-install".

That is not a common reason given.

> The beauty of AJAX, etc, is in terms of support.  It's a complex way of
> getting away from Windows, to which people will go to extraordinary
> lengths.

Windows has not really lost significant market market share.

And given that it with Windows 8 planned to be releases
in October will be possible to write Windows desktop apps
in HTML5/CSS/JS, then that combo is fine for Windows.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13291

On 12-04-01 09:16 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 4/1/2012 4:50 PM, Thufir wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 13:39:43 -0500, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>>> People now think HTML5/Javascript is the next big thing, where everyone
>>> will write their wonderful advanced 20 million lines applications in
>>> HTML5 and Javascript.
>>
>> You're assuming everyone has stable, non-infected pc's.  The whole point
>> of the cloud, insofar as I can tell, to avoid annoying support calls
>> which end in either "reboot" or "re-install".
> 
> That is not a common reason given.

Not having to worry about the infrastructure is in fact one of the most
common reasons for going to the cloud. If you look at IaaS, PaaS, SaaS
(or any others of the derivative ?aaS's) all of them relieve you of some
degree of worry about (read "support for") some aspect of IT.

[ SNIP ]

AHS
-- 
A fly was very close to being called a "land," cause that's what they do
half the time.
-- Mitch Hedberg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13293

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 21:40:10 -0300, Arved Sandstrom wrote:

>>> You're assuming everyone has stable, non-infected pc's.  The whole
>>> point of the cloud, insofar as I can tell, to avoid annoying support
>>> calls which end in either "reboot" or "re-install".
>> 
>> That is not a common reason given.
> 
> Not having to worry about the infrastructure is in fact one of the most
> common reasons for going to the cloud. If you look at IaaS, PaaS, SaaS
> (or any others of the derivative ?aaS's) all of them relieve you of some
> degree of worry about (read "support for") some aspect of IT.


Exactly.  That Windows is prevalent is undoubtedly an indirect reason for 
all this cloud stuff -- it expressly avoids dealing with Windows 
directly.  Instead you deal with the browser.  Which, of course, is where 
ActiveX extensions come in...

If everyone was on an iMac or something reliable and secure, then desktop 
apps would rule, is my point.  Or, to turn that question around:  *why* 
medium sized businesses like their stuff in the cloud?  Only because it 
eliminates the local pc as a problem, I say.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13296

On 04/02/2012 04:00 AM, Thufir wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 21:40:10 -0300, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>
>>>> You're assuming everyone has stable, non-infected pc's.  The whole
>>>> point of the cloud, insofar as I can tell, to avoid annoying support
>>>> calls which end in either "reboot" or "re-install".
>>>
>>> That is not a common reason given.
>>
>> Not having to worry about the infrastructure is in fact one of the most
>> common reasons for going to the cloud. If you look at IaaS, PaaS, SaaS
>> (or any others of the derivative ?aaS's) all of them relieve you of some
>> degree of worry about (read "support for") some aspect of IT.
>
>
> Exactly.  That Windows is prevalent is undoubtedly an indirect reason for
> all this cloud stuff -- it expressly avoids dealing with Windows
> directly.  Instead you deal with the browser.  Which, of course, is where
> ActiveX extensions come in...
>
> If everyone was on an iMac or something reliable and secure, then desktop
> apps would rule, is my point.  Or, to turn that question around:  *why*
> medium sized businesses like their stuff in the cloud?  Only because it
> eliminates the local pc as a problem, I say.

First of all iMac and Linux (which I use) desktops are hardly more 
secure than a Windows desktop. That is all in the numbers. The more 
users the more security mishaps, largely because such a user base is 
attractive to hackers. The fact that the average non-Windows users are 
more techy than their counterparts and are therefore more security aware 
further amplifies this.

The Cloud has little or nothing to do with that. It may even introduce 
more security hazards than it circumvents.

The Cloud is mostly about having the same functionality AND data on all 
devices you may use. The desktop at work, the old PC at home, your 
phone, the shiny new tablet you bought your wife, your friends high end 
TV you can now use to show him something you did at work, the PC in the 
Internet cafe during your vacation, etc. etc.

The Cload makes verything be about your data and what you do with it 
instead of the devices (and to a large extent the applications) you 
happen to use at any moment in time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13294

On 4/1/2012 8:40 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> On 12-04-01 09:16 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 4/1/2012 4:50 PM, Thufir wrote:
>>> On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 13:39:43 -0500, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>>>> People now think HTML5/Javascript is the next big thing, where everyone
>>>> will write their wonderful advanced 20 million lines applications in
>>>> HTML5 and Javascript.
>>>
>>> You're assuming everyone has stable, non-infected pc's.  The whole point
>>> of the cloud, insofar as I can tell, to avoid annoying support calls
>>> which end in either "reboot" or "re-install".
>>
>> That is not a common reason given.
>
> Not having to worry about the infrastructure is in fact one of the most
> common reasons for going to the cloud. If you look at IaaS, PaaS, SaaS
> (or any others of the derivative ?aaS's) all of them relieve you of some
> degree of worry about (read "support for") some aspect of IT.

Not worrying about infrastructure is indeed a common
reason.

But I have never heard about not having to reboot or
reinstall client side Windows as a common reason.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13297

On 12-04-01 11:19 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 4/1/2012 8:40 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> On 12-04-01 09:16 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 4/1/2012 4:50 PM, Thufir wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 13:39:43 -0500, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>>>>> People now think HTML5/Javascript is the next big thing, where
>>>>> everyone
>>>>> will write their wonderful advanced 20 million lines applications in
>>>>> HTML5 and Javascript.
>>>>
>>>> You're assuming everyone has stable, non-infected pc's.  The whole
>>>> point
>>>> of the cloud, insofar as I can tell, to avoid annoying support calls
>>>> which end in either "reboot" or "re-install".
>>>
>>> That is not a common reason given.
>>
>> Not having to worry about the infrastructure is in fact one of the most
>> common reasons for going to the cloud. If you look at IaaS, PaaS, SaaS
>> (or any others of the derivative ?aaS's) all of them relieve you of some
>> degree of worry about (read "support for") some aspect of IT.
> 
> Not worrying about infrastructure is indeed a common
> reason.
> 
> But I have never heard about not having to reboot or
> reinstall client side Windows as a common reason.
> 
> Arne
> 
I didn't have it narrowed down to "client side", Arne. If it is narrowed
down to that then I don't know if we're talking about a common reason or
just a reason. It's certainly not an insignificant reason: it's a short
step from desktop virtualization inside your own organization to the
Desktop-as-a-Service variant of SaaS. If that isn't a common reason now
for "cloud" it surely will be soon.

AHS
-- 
A fly was very close to being called a "land," cause that's what they do
half the time.
-- Mitch Hedberg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13331

On 4/2/2012 6:09 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> On 12-04-01 11:19 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 4/1/2012 8:40 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>> On 12-04-01 09:16 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 4/1/2012 4:50 PM, Thufir wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 13:39:43 -0500, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>>>>>> People now think HTML5/Javascript is the next big thing, where
>>>>>> everyone
>>>>>> will write their wonderful advanced 20 million lines applications in
>>>>>> HTML5 and Javascript.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're assuming everyone has stable, non-infected pc's.  The whole
>>>>> point
>>>>> of the cloud, insofar as I can tell, to avoid annoying support calls
>>>>> which end in either "reboot" or "re-install".
>>>>
>>>> That is not a common reason given.
>>>
>>> Not having to worry about the infrastructure is in fact one of the most
>>> common reasons for going to the cloud. If you look at IaaS, PaaS, SaaS
>>> (or any others of the derivative ?aaS's) all of them relieve you of some
>>> degree of worry about (read "support for") some aspect of IT.
>>
>> Not worrying about infrastructure is indeed a common
>> reason.
>>
>> But I have never heard about not having to reboot or
>> reinstall client side Windows as a common reason.
>
> I didn't have it narrowed down to "client side", Arne.

Well what started it was this:

# annoying support calls which end in either "reboot" or "re-install"

And while it does happen that support call on desktop Windows from an
end user may end with one of these two options, then it would surprise
me if a support call on Windows server from a sysadm ended with one
of those.

>                                                      If it is narrowed
> down to that then I don't know if we're talking about a common reason or
> just a reason. It's certainly not an insignificant reason: it's a short
> step from desktop virtualization inside your own organization to the
> Desktop-as-a-Service variant of SaaS. If that isn't a common reason now
> for "cloud" it surely will be soon.

I don't think DaaS is mainstream now.

It could become.

But I am a bit skeptical. The PC has been doomed many times. But the
thin clients or whatever they call it a particular year has never really
gotten traction.

Remember back when Larry Ellison said that the NC would kill
the PC.

I think people actually like their PC's!

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13342

On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 20:02:44 -0400, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk>
wrote:

[snip]

>But I am a bit skeptical. The PC has been doomed many times. But the
                                          ^
     Insert "said to be".

>thin clients or whatever they call it a particular year has never really
>gotten traction.
>
>Remember back when Larry Ellison said that the NC would kill
>the PC.
>
>I think people actually like their PC's!

     I think they like having something to own.  "My data is here!"
vs. "My data is Over There, oops, no, Over There."

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13343

On 4/2/2012 7:02 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

>
> I think people actually like their PC's!
>
  
"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home."

Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation.

I guess he also believed in "cloud" computing as well.

--Nasser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13347

On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 22:42:02 -0500, "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org>
wrote:

>On 4/2/2012 7:02 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

>> I think people actually like their PC's!

>"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home."
>
>Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation.
>
>I guess he also believed in "cloud" computing as well.

     No, it is just that there was no perceived need for computers in
the home.  In these days of computer saturation, that may be hard to
understand, but it was so.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13348

On 4/3/2012 8:13 AM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 22:42:02 -0500, "Nasser M. Abbasi"<nma@12000.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/2/2012 7:02 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
>>> I think people actually like their PC's!
>
>> "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home."
>>
>> Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation.
>>
>> I guess he also believed in "cloud" computing as well.
>
>       No, it is just that there was no perceived need for computers in
> the home.  In these days of computer saturation, that may be hard to
> understand, but it was so.

There was not even a perceived need for *computing* in the home.

Patricia

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13360

On 4/3/2012 12:46 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> On 4/3/2012 8:13 AM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 22:42:02 -0500, "Nasser M. Abbasi"<nma@12000.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/2/2012 7:02 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>
>>>> I think people actually like their PC's!
>>
>>> "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home."
>>>
>>> Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation.
>>>
>>> I guess he also believed in "cloud" computing as well.
>>
>> No, it is just that there was no perceived need for computers in
>> the home. In these days of computer saturation, that may be hard to
>> understand, but it was so.
>
> There was not even a perceived need for *computing* in the home.

The quote is from 1977.

The same year as Apple introduced the Apple II.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13358

On 4/2/2012 11:42 PM, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
> On 4/2/2012 7:02 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> I think people actually like their PC's!
>
> "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home."
>
> Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation.
>
> I guess he also believed in "cloud" computing as well.

He believed in time sharing computers.

And the widely spread quote may have been out of
context - at least that is the claim at:
   http://www.snopes.com/quotes/kenolsen.asp

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13363

On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 19:35:26 -0400, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk>
wrote:

>On 4/2/2012 11:42 PM, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>> On 4/2/2012 7:02 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> I think people actually like their PC's!
>>
>> "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home."
>>
>> Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation.
>>
>> I guess he also believed in "cloud" computing as well.
>
>He believed in time sharing computers.
>
>And the widely spread quote may have been out of
>context - at least that is the claim at:
>   http://www.snopes.com/quotes/kenolsen.asp

     Thank you for the link.  That makes a lot more sense.  There
still are silly computer quotes.  The one I really like is:

Popular Mechanics, March 1949, p. 258: "Where a calculator on the
ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons,
computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and perhaps
weigh 1 1/2 tons."

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web