[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Lucent Technologies & Sun Microsystems
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Lucent Technologies & Sun Microsystems
- From: Greg Kochanski <email@example.com>
- CC: firstname.lastname@example.org
email@example.com wrote: > There is virtually no likelihood that the NC model will succeed. It's too > incompatible, too limited, and the much-ballyhooed cost savings simply aren't > enough to justify the dead-end, limited-function, crippled/brain-dead NC > machine. Don't confuse Inferno with the more extreme examples of NC. Inferno doesn't prohibit local disks and data. On the other hand, weak network computing is widespread and works well. Unix and Windows boxes import disks from servers all the time; one gets the advantage of centralized backup and upgrades. ... > [Coca-Cola example: formula not worth much without factories, distributors, ...] > The bottom line is that even making an equivalent product, EVEN IF you have cost > advantages, there's a long way to go between achieving that and really seriously > putting Intel into a precarious situation. I must point out that Intel did it; we don't run Windows on Zilog Z-8000s. Likewise, Microsoft pushed out CP-M, so there examples to prove that while it's hard, it's not impossible. However, I don't believe that anyone here is seriously pushing Inferno as a desktop operating system.