Uh not quite. Old mainframes were deliberately given a 'block remote access' switch that gives full control to the console to the person physically at the mainframe. That's a feature, not a cripple-me switch.
In a case of what would be best described as "wtf", I work for a US company in the UK that uses a US based proxy for all web connections. As such I can connect to Pandora which is not available in the "UK" but can not connect to Spotify which is only available in the "UK" in a non-subscription basis.
Obviously the internet cares not about borders so why are companies being forced into ridiculous limitation that are so easily bypassed for the sake of laws invented before human beings even conceived the idea of what eventually became the internet.
Uh not quite. Web servers sure, database? I think not. Having actually tried to do what you're suggesting, all those threads are no good if each of them sucks in terms of performance.
Webservers/fileservers sure but it is too expensive to consider unless there aren't any other viable, cheaper options - which there are plenty of
Have you ever _used_ a coolthreads server? Sure it has lots of hardware threads but that's not going to do you any good if each of those threads runs so very very slowly.
Having run benchmarks, a single Ultrasparc T2 (5120, 32 threads) performed on par with a single core of an Athlon Opteron 2000...
It's not an accident that the Sparc architecture is dying off
I'm sure Intel would like all of that pie and unfortunately for us, they are willing to do anything to get it. Including strong arming Asus when they showed an Arm based chipset running on Qualcomm's Snapdragon platform (running Android no less). A quick intervention from Intel and Microsoft and Asus was saying that 'the project is on hold' while sharing a stage with a VP from each of Intel and Microsoft.. Story on slashdot a couple days back.
Oh and these arm based devices can run all-day(apparently), nevermind 8 hours.
http://gizmodo.com/5273723/asus-demos-snapdragon+based-eee-pc-with-android
Sadly, in same position as you.
As a case in point, I come from a backwater country of a population of less than a million with broadband speeds of barely over 1Mb (theoretical..) and my current connection with BT is _far_ worse than that.
Take that as you will.
As has already been stated, when developers to make separate code for *one* browser than what they're using for any other browser and are hit with bugs that only happen on that one browser because that browser is not standards compliant then that by itself is opposed to innovation and creation of said standards as well as their continued development.
You are of course entitled to your own opinion but the fact of the matter is this:
Microsoft's business practice in regards to IE and windows is _illegal_.
IE: 66%
In April 2009. Sure firefox grabbed market share. Is it enough? No. Is it beating IE? No. Is it beating the world's worst browser, IE6? By 3%.
There was a time when IE was the best browser because it was the only browser and every site out there was coded for IE, not for the web, not per W3C standard nor common sense.
Firefox has not proven that innovation works, firefox has proven that the only thing that was keeping back innovation was IE.
Please re-read.
Let me help you:
The argument is not that no other company bundles browers with their operating systems
Perhaps. Not really an argument tho, it hasn't happened.
If you think the prevalence of IE is not a good enough example of stiffling innovation well then where have you been the past 5 years? We're talking about a line of browsers for which sites have to specifically code for. A line of browsers where 'standards compliancy' is a swear word. A line of browers were, even now in 2009, most corporate intranet sites will *only* work with them and no other browser.
The difference is Apple does not have a monopoly and, critically, does not abuse its position of monopoly *and* by doing so stiffling competition and innovation.
If you still do not understand what I'm saying please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_bundling and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce). They are *both* prohibited by law.
You may think it's "unfair" that Microsoft is having to pay for its success - the point is competitors in a different field should not have to suffer because of Microsoft's monopoly in another field.
The argument is not that no other company bundles browers with their operating systems.
The argument is that a company which maintains a *monopoly* in as far as what operating system people are more likely to use is abusing this position of monopoly to push their own browser which is in turn stiffling innovation and advancement in browsers.
Evidence is everywhere of this. Do you really thing IE6 deserves its market share? Whenever a company abuses its position to push a competing product at the expense of other companies trying to compete with it then yes, that is due cause for the law to step in.
I think you're missing the point. I'm not extolling OSS virtues and I have no delusions that somehow oss software is a panacea to the world's problems. I fully understand how important consistency is and I have actually done customer support.
Obviously you haven't thought this through otherwise you would notice that having a consistent interface and a standard set of packages with expected functionality is exactly what Asus have done (for example).
If you are suggesting that just because it is not the same interface as what people may have used in the past then that is somehow wrong, or prone to problems or hard to learn is self defeating. You will never get anywhere with an attitude like that.
As a company having your own interface and complete control over what runs, how the interface looks, behaves and how the user interacts with it is a huge boon, not a disadvantage.
I'm very sorry you think of anything different as scary but obviously the rest of the world does not agree with you and Asus has the sales to prove it.
If people are intimidated by it and it is so hard to learn then how on earth did it get rave reviews and millions of sales?
It's quite easy, as I'm sure you are well aware, to spread fear of "bad scary monsters" but the actual _evidence_ suggests otherwise.
And just in case you are too lazy to go google the thing for yourself, here you go:
http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/news.phtml/18560/asus-boss-reveals-eee-sales.phtml
Next time how bout doing some research hmm? Also note the some million units sold in the first quarter were mostly Linux based versions..
Yes, again, Jo Consumer does not buy windows. He buys a device, a laptop, a netbook whatever. He will use what comes with it and that is it. If said device comes with an interface, even if it is not one they are used to from other devices, they will either use it or not buy the device in the first place.
There's no point arguing 'yes but they're used to windows'. It doesn't matter. They will use what comes with the device.
Anyone needing easy portable access to a browser, email reader, word processor, calendar or such (like say students, teachers, and a range of business people) then they should be able to pick up a netbook running whatever OS is available and use it without any inconvenience.
Exactly what I'm trying to say.
"The four building blocks of the universe are fire, water, gravel and vinyl." -- Dave Barry
