I think this is a very important point. (Score 1)

People are saying yah, well, that's dumb--corruption problems, process issues, etc. but I think that's part of the point. Maybe I'm just mising all the wonderful success stories of companies who have migrated to thin clients while maintaining high levels of user satisfaction as employees of the company go about the business of doing their jobs. I'm sure those stories are out there, I'm just not seeing many of them.

And I don't lay that all on the feet of IT. The people who have pointed out that upper management is a problem . . . well, generally speaking, of course! They don't have to deal with the system the way most of the rest of us do because they secure the best resources for themselves, they don't give IT the tools they need to succeed, and what you end up with is a thin client implementation that is a bad as the decision to go to thin clients.

In other words, the types of business that I've personally seem so far that really think thin clients are the way to are the same ones that seem the most screwed up at the top. Maybe that has to do with where I am geographically, or the types of businesses I'm exposed to, I don't know. Maybe this /. topic will open my eyes to the successful implementation of these wonderful devices all over the United States. If it really does work, I'm not opposed to it just for the sake of being contrary.