In the late 70's I began thinking about and, by 1986, created a way for people in restaurants to work more efficiently by manipulating graphical symbols on touchscreens. By doing this they could walk far fewer steps, stop having to create guest checks by hand, record all the transactions, largely get their work done without having to talk so much to other employees, and could put your food & beverages on your table much more quickly, and with far fewer errors. Restaurant and bar employees finally had a tool, a graphical language, that helped them do their work more efficiently. You may have seen this system, or one of the many systems copied from it. For the past 12 years it has been possible for people who buy this system to program it solely by the direct manipulation of graphical symbols - using a graphical language to create an even more sophisticated, more specialized graphical language.
Virtually anyone could benefit from having such a system, engineered by the use of graphical symbols to be of specific use to anyone in their specific situation, especially now that the graphical symbols and the language itself consists of network transparent graphical symbols. Graphical programming is all around us, actually, and it will become so predominant that people will soon find it hard to comprehend that it was not always so.
To play a computer game these days is to create a solution to a problem solely by means of learning to manipulate graphical symbols at a sufficient level of sophistication. Game software is written almost entirely by manipulation of graphical symbols. Yes, it is true, of course, that the graphical symbols are created with C++ an other text languages but the graphical languages built with text languages are the first steps to this and the results - any game you care to buy - are impressive in every way, by any standard.
What will happen is that the graphical symbols will eventually reach the hardware through fewer and fewer levels of text-based abstraction, until someday, in the not-too-distant future, the hardware will directly manifest the graphical symbols that people interact with at the level of the interface. It's the most efficient way to do it - and, ultimately, the simplest, once the task of how to do it is, itself, finally comprehended.
There are machines and methodologies designed to make neurosurgery less intimidating to neurosurgeons. There are courses designed to teach neurosurgeons how to use machines and methodologies less intimidating to neurosurgeons.
The kids will develop machines and methodologies to make neurosurgery less intimidating to themselves. They won't care for or have any respect for all the fears, excuses and mental obstacles that the old people have. They'll do it for themselves.
I made a call to Michael Tiemann, author of the GNU C++ compiler, a few years ago to encourage him to create a programming extension to his work with gnu C++ by adding graphical symbols to C++ which would allow people, especially children, to program in C++ by manipulating graphical symbols the way that C++ programmers now manipulate text to create software.
He said it was impossible.
All that means, really, is that it won't be Michael Tiemann who authors or participates in this inevitable breakthrough.
As mobile device makers begin to put OpenGL ES chips into their devices, like this, http://www.imgtec.com/PowerVR/Products/Graphics/MB X/index.asp?Page=2 and if these devices are used as X servers (i.e., remote display terminals) then the only thing that remains for fantastic user experiences is people to write X apps to make the devices specifically useful in the different scenarios in which all people find themselves day in and day out.
I was able to do something useful with the crusoe chip, running this portable wireless X terminal. http://www.viewtouch.com/mobile.html The problems were that Hitachi sold these in small quantities at three times the price it sold them in larger quantities and that Hitachi stopped manufacturing these without any notice.
These devices can and do work. What's needed are hardware designers and manufacturers who are absolutely convinced that mobile devices are NOT going away, that they need to be able to be as useful as versatile terminals not just when they're being used for phone calls but also when users are interacting with software apps. ThinLinx is one such company.
The conjecture is patently overblown. All that Fermi's conjecture demonstrates is how overwhelmed he was when confronted with his own need to say something about which he had no experience and no evidence.
No kidding. How else could be create such a refined environment of hypocricy, double standards and self delusion? TV as government propaganda, political control agency and moral arbiter at its finest.
And Next; The Internet. First, we'll send teachers to jail for 40 years whenever they don't know how to prevent popup windows in Microsoft Internet Explorer. Then we'll send Librarians to jail if they don't tell us who reads any of the 'forbidden' books. And anyone who protests is a traitor.
The FCC is the government's first line of defense. Repression, whatever.
Viewer Discretion is Advised. That gets the network and production company off the hook. How many Arabs will Joel Surnow have Keifer Sutherland kill this week, I wonder... Hell, they're all guilty anyway, no doubt about that. And I'm NOT suggesting that just because Joel Surnow is Jewish that this is the reason that Keifer Sutherland never has to follow a script that calls for killing anyone who is on the Israeli side of things.
How about regulating the violence perpetrated by the US government, by secret organizations funded by the US government and by the companies that build bombs, weapons and ammunition, then sell these things to governments and organizations all across the world. How about regulating that? How about putting an END to that?
Anyone has to admit that RMS is an achiever. Countless men and women have died and will always die wondering whether they actually made a difference with the time that they were given. RMS will never have to wonder if he has made a difference. He has. And he's done something that makes him one of history's most influential people. History will be very kind to RMS. His legacy, and the legacy of the Free Software Foundation is, I'll offer, richer and longer-lasting than that of Bill Gates and any other 50 people who have ever toiled at Microsoft.
Seriously, never mind. I'm too busy doing everything I'm talking about to justify devoting any more time listening to you trying to tell me it can't be done. That's as boring to me now as it was 25 & 30 years ago. You're comfortable and nobody wants to upset that. Nobody has a right to deprive you of that.
For the hardware, you can find ThinLinx with any search engine. ThinLinx was in Brazil last year promoting their hardware. For the software, you can send me an email by clicking on my URL. You've seen people using touchscreens and graphical displays in restaurants - that's software that I first created in 1985. It's been widely copied throughout the world. I have software tools that can be used to create similar user interfaces for children, even children as young as 2 years. No wires, no computers - yes, it is pretty exciting. We have all of this in point of sale now. Adapting it to education is very, very easy, and fun.
I've already created one software paradigm that has been copied, adopted and put to use worldwide - the graphic touchscreen point of sale user interface, and I have no doubt that as it is adapted and applied to other markets, including the pre-school and elementary school markets, it will continue to be copied, adopted and put to use worldwide. The advantage I have at this point, an advantage I've only recently gained, is that hardware is now available which makes computers unnecessary for local users and the software to deliver the content to users is free. That will accelerate the embrace of this approach.
There are no computers needed in the classroom and no computer-savvy administrators needed in the school's staff. You may have missed that part. Your problem is that you aren't aware of all the things that you don't know, but nobody's holding that against you.
That's horrible advice. Yes, teach them mathematic concepts, and literacy, and composition, but use technology to do it. You've never seen software that can facilitate this, probably, but eschewing technology just because you haven't seen it applied successfully is patently illogical and betrays the fact that you are not thinking logically about this issue.
I see lots of useless comments here that offer you nothing but sarcasm. That's unfortunate. What I'd like to suggest to you, however, is this: You can provide children software without putting any computers in the classroom. All you have to do is give them displays which have a network connection. These are available from an Australian company called ThinLinx. You won't need to put network cables everywhere, either. You can use wireless networking. All you need for this is a wireless router, about $50.
You can add touchscreens to the displays at a very low cost by going with any of the Chinese touchscreen manufacturers. This will give you the ability to provide software that the children can interact with by just using their fingers. This software can teach them virtually any subject that you want to teach them. I have several such programs for children. They are fast learners and typically master interacting with the software in just minutes.
Foundations love to give money to educational institutions and educators looking for ways to apply technology to helping children learn. I'm willing to bet that you can get the small amount of equipment you need (since you don't need computers) from any foundation with children and education as their primary target. This describes most foundations. Any individual with a few thousand dollars could also provide enough money to properly equip your classroom.
With your Internet connection you will be find that anyone in the world could remotely manage, update and support a computer located in, for instance, your office, and that this computer would be more than adequate to support ALL of the wireless touchscreen displays that the children would be interacting with.
Well, yes, actually, slashdot is out of touch. This and many other stories accepted lately are coming from readers of reddit.com, a very useful site for news that's interesting.
You're looking at one particular tree and I'm looking at the forest.
How many people have been arrested for playing a game on a game console? There are several hundred million such consoles out there.
Does it really take a PC to send a photograph to someone? No. Can you send a picture to someone over the Internet if you have a graphic display terminal instead of a PC? Yes.
Send me a link, if you would, to any report you can find of someone being prosecuted for using a terminal to browse an 'illegal website'. And another link, please, of how law enforcement is monitoring 'everybody' who uses terminals. You talk about these things as if they are actually happening and I would like to know if you have any examples at all of these things happening or if you are just making them up.
A browser does not require a PC with an OS, but only a display terminal, i.e., one with an X server (software that delivers the display and input components of remote applications to you) and network link to applications (in this case browsers) already running somewhere else. Then you can do banking and enjoy the world wide web without a PC or local storage. Chatting is available via any of several plug-ins for the Firefox browser.
Here's the howto that turns any PC into a network display terminal, and X server. When this is running no use will be made of the hard drive. It will also work if there is no hard drive in the system. It will also work if there is no operating system installed on the computer.
But, you see, you're not the average user and you're not seeing it from their viewpoint. There are 1,000 of them for every one of you. And for all you know there is so much you don't yet imagine.
For example, you talk about bitmaps. But you disregard remote user-side graphics rendering.
You talk about running X apps remotely. But most X apps designed for desktop users make no provision for serving up displays remotely, hence don't perform well remotely. No surprise there.
You presume a 'monolithic entity'. But this isn't the way it's ever been done or ever will be done. How many web sites are there, a handful or countless millions?
You're thinking timesharing. But that's not how it's going to be done.
You won't need to worry about any of this because all this technology is being designed to ignore you and your attitude about it. So relax.
You listen to the radio programs streamed at you; how can you be guilty of what you listen to, how can you possess what you listen to, how can you violate a copyright by listening to what is streamed to you? How can you have 'illegal self-replicating gridd attacking objects by listening to the radio? How can a judge convict you of a crime for what you listen to on the radio? You need to explain yourself because software is no different than a radio broadcast if it's streamed at your viewer. And, no, it's no joke. This is the way that the delivery of software is moving, surely you can see...
The solution to this problem, and to virtually all of the problems that are associated with computer ownership, is simple and inevitable. Do away with the personal computer.
For most people it is completely unnecessary. For most people all they need is a graphical display terminal with a rich user interface environment that is attached to the Internet and software which is streamed at them, whether in a browser or, as in the case of X, served up to their graphical display terminal.
No hard drive to worry about, nothing police can find in your possession to investigate, charge, prosecute and punish you for, no viruses, no spyware, no adware, no trojan software.
Nobody every got in trouble for watching the most raw, stimulating, raunchy porn on TV and nobody will ever get in trouble for watching what is streamed to their graphics display terminal. After its viewed it just goes right off into the great void. Any software that the average person needs in the future will be streamed directly to their graphics display terminal which is connected directly to the Internet without the need for a local operating system, storage, massive bank of RAM or local copies of application programs.
Users can go anywhere in the world, walk up to any graphics display terminal and have the same software experience regardless of who they are, where they are. No need to download songs or movies, just stream them right to you, just like Television. You don't need a PC to have a TV, you don't need a PC to have a phone, you don't need a PC to receive streaming software. You just need a graphical display terminal. No mess, no fuss. The PC, for the average person, is an unnecessary, expendible component of the software experience in the era of ubiquitous access to the Internet and versatile graphical display terminals.
You guys always do this; you talk about "Linux" but you are really talking about either the X Windows System or you're talking about the thousands of various software tools (such as all the GNU software) in the various distributions or you're talking about the various applications software packages that run on Linux and X, most of which also run on, for example, BSD and X.
Everybody here at Slashdot knows this already but, still, and probably forever, most people won't know this. So, is this OK? I don't think so. Linux is the heart but X is the blood, lungs, bones, muscle and skin. Let's get over being shy or ignorant about the importance of X, its uniqueness as a network display protocol, the renaissance in X development, the activity in X related projects like cairo, SVG, all things GL (OpenGL,XGL, AIXGL), Desktop environments based on X, etc..
Let's get over being shy about the importance of the UNIX component model and the valuable tool extensions that make this approach so much more useful than the monolithic approaches of other operating environments, such as rsync, scripting, et al.. And lastly, let's start talking about the absolute need for network computing. That's the computing paradigm of the present and the future. Let's talk about how so much of Linux, X, rsync (for example) and the applications are already so well suited for making use of and advancing that approach to software. Network computing is replacing the desktop as the next 'big thing', so let's start talking about that, why don't we? The game console manufacturers have recognized and accepted this, so why don't we accept that this is also true for applications?
What you're describing sounds an awful lot like the new Hot-E from http://www.thinlinx.com/
This product has been in development for a while and it's now in production. I'm using it to do Linux/X touchscreen point of sale for restaurants, bars and retail.
Slashdot Mirror
In the late 70's I began thinking about and, by 1986, created a way for people in restaurants to work more efficiently by manipulating graphical symbols on touchscreens. By doing this they could walk far fewer steps, stop having to create guest checks by hand, record all the transactions, largely get their work done without having to talk so much to other employees, and could put your food & beverages on your table much more quickly, and with far fewer errors. Restaurant and bar employees finally had a tool, a graphical language, that helped them do their work more efficiently. You may have seen this system, or one of the many systems copied from it. For the past 12 years it has been possible for people who buy this system to program it solely by the direct manipulation of graphical symbols - using a graphical language to create an even more sophisticated, more specialized graphical language.
Virtually anyone could benefit from having such a system, engineered by the use of graphical symbols to be of specific use to anyone in their specific situation, especially now that the graphical symbols and the language itself consists of network transparent graphical symbols. Graphical programming is all around us, actually, and it will become so predominant that people will soon find it hard to comprehend that it was not always so.
To play a computer game these days is to create a solution to a problem solely by means of learning to manipulate graphical symbols at a sufficient level of sophistication. Game software is written almost entirely by manipulation of graphical symbols. Yes, it is true, of course, that the graphical symbols are created with C++ an other text languages but the graphical languages built with text languages are the first steps to this and the results - any game you care to buy - are impressive in every way, by any standard.
What will happen is that the graphical symbols will eventually reach the hardware through fewer and fewer levels of text-based abstraction, until someday, in the not-too-distant future, the hardware will directly manifest the graphical symbols that people interact with at the level of the interface. It's the most efficient way to do it - and, ultimately, the simplest, once the task of how to do it is, itself, finally comprehended.
Just take a look at this one, for instance.
T O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-b ool.html&r=4&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=Microsoft. ASNM.&s2=%22user+interface%22.TI.&OS=AN/Microsoft+ AND+TTL/%22user+interface%22&RS=AN/Microsoft+AND+T TL/%22user+interface%22
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
There is not a judge in the world, much less a jury, that could possibly even comprehend the text of this patent.
And there is no way in hell that the patent examiner could possibly have comprehended what the patent application was about.
There are machines and methodologies designed to make neurosurgery less intimidating to neurosurgeons. There are courses designed to teach neurosurgeons how to use machines and methodologies less intimidating to neurosurgeons.
The kids will develop machines and methodologies to make neurosurgery less intimidating to themselves. They won't care for or have any respect for all the fears, excuses and mental obstacles that the old people have. They'll do it for themselves.
I made a call to Michael Tiemann, author of the GNU C++ compiler, a few years ago to encourage him to create a programming extension to his work with gnu C++ by adding graphical symbols to C++ which would allow people, especially children, to program in C++ by manipulating graphical symbols the way that C++ programmers now manipulate text to create software.
He said it was impossible.
All that means, really, is that it won't be Michael Tiemann who authors or participates in this inevitable breakthrough.
As mobile device makers begin to put OpenGL ES chips into their devices, like this, http://www.imgtec.com/PowerVR/Products/Graphics/MB X/index.asp?Page=2 and if these devices are used as X servers (i.e., remote display terminals) then the only thing that remains for fantastic user experiences is people to write X apps to make the devices specifically useful in the different scenarios in which all people find themselves day in and day out.
I was able to do something useful with the crusoe chip, running this portable wireless X terminal. http://www.viewtouch.com/mobile.html The problems were that Hitachi sold these in small quantities at three times the price it sold them in larger quantities and that Hitachi stopped manufacturing these without any notice.
These devices can and do work. What's needed are hardware designers and manufacturers who are absolutely convinced that mobile devices are NOT going away, that they need to be able to be as useful as versatile terminals not just when they're being used for phone calls but also when users are interacting with software apps. ThinLinx is one such company.
The conjecture is patently overblown. All that Fermi's conjecture demonstrates is how overwhelmed he was when confronted with his own need to say something about which he had no experience and no evidence.
No kidding. How else could be create such a refined environment of hypocricy, double standards and self delusion? TV as government propaganda, political control agency and moral arbiter at its finest.
And Next; The Internet. First, we'll send teachers to jail for 40 years whenever they don't know how to prevent popup windows in Microsoft Internet Explorer. Then we'll send Librarians to jail if they don't tell us who reads any of the 'forbidden' books. And anyone who protests is a traitor.
The FCC is the government's first line of defense. Repression, whatever.
Viewer Discretion is Advised. That gets the network and production company off the hook. How many Arabs will Joel Surnow have Keifer Sutherland kill this week, I wonder... Hell, they're all guilty anyway, no doubt about that. And I'm NOT suggesting that just because Joel Surnow is Jewish that this is the reason that Keifer Sutherland never has to follow a script that calls for killing anyone who is on the Israeli side of things.
How about regulating the violence perpetrated by the US government, by secret organizations funded by the US government and by the companies that build bombs, weapons and ammunition, then sell these things to governments and organizations all across the world. How about regulating that? How about putting an END to that?
Anyone has to admit that RMS is an achiever. Countless men and women have died and will always die wondering whether they actually made a difference with the time that they were given. RMS will never have to wonder if he has made a difference. He has. And he's done something that makes him one of history's most influential people. History will be very kind to RMS. His legacy, and the legacy of the Free Software Foundation is, I'll offer, richer and longer-lasting than that of Bill Gates and any other 50 people who have ever toiled at Microsoft.
Seriously, never mind. I'm too busy doing everything I'm talking about to justify devoting any more time listening to you trying to tell me it can't be done. That's as boring to me now as it was 25 & 30 years ago. You're comfortable and nobody wants to upset that. Nobody has a right to deprive you of that.
For the hardware, you can find ThinLinx with any search engine. ThinLinx was in Brazil last year promoting their hardware. For the software, you can send me an email by clicking on my URL. You've seen people using touchscreens and graphical displays in restaurants - that's software that I first created in 1985. It's been widely copied throughout the world. I have software tools that can be used to create similar user interfaces for children, even children as young as 2 years. No wires, no computers - yes, it is pretty exciting. We have all of this in point of sale now. Adapting it to education is very, very easy, and fun.
I've already created one software paradigm that has been copied, adopted and put to use worldwide - the graphic touchscreen point of sale user interface, and I have no doubt that as it is adapted and applied to other markets, including the pre-school and elementary school markets, it will continue to be copied, adopted and put to use worldwide. The advantage I have at this point, an advantage I've only recently gained, is that hardware is now available which makes computers unnecessary for local users and the software to deliver the content to users is free. That will accelerate the embrace of this approach.
There are no computers needed in the classroom and no computer-savvy administrators needed in the school's staff. You may have missed that part. Your problem is that you aren't aware of all the things that you don't know, but nobody's holding that against you.
That's horrible advice. Yes, teach them mathematic concepts, and literacy, and composition, but use technology to do it. You've never seen software that can facilitate this, probably, but eschewing technology just because you haven't seen it applied successfully is patently illogical and betrays the fact that you are not thinking logically about this issue.
I see lots of useless comments here that offer you nothing but sarcasm. That's unfortunate. What I'd like to suggest to you, however, is this:
You can provide children software without putting any computers in the classroom. All you have to do is give them displays which have a network connection. These are available from an Australian company called ThinLinx. You won't need to put network cables everywhere, either. You can use wireless networking. All you need for this is a wireless router, about $50.
You can add touchscreens to the displays at a very low cost by going with any of the Chinese touchscreen manufacturers. This will give you the ability to provide software that the children can interact with by just using their fingers. This software can teach them virtually any subject that you want to teach them. I have several such programs for children. They are fast learners and typically master interacting with the software in just minutes.
Foundations love to give money to educational institutions and educators looking for ways to apply technology to helping children learn. I'm willing to bet that you can get the small amount of equipment you need (since you don't need computers) from any foundation with children and education as their primary target. This describes most foundations. Any individual with a few thousand dollars could also provide enough money to properly equip your classroom.
With your Internet connection you will be find that anyone in the world could remotely manage, update and support a computer located in, for instance, your office, and that this computer would be more than adequate to support ALL of the wireless touchscreen displays that the children would be interacting with.
one man's pron is another man's life's blood.
Well, yes, actually, slashdot is out of touch. This and many other stories accepted lately are coming from readers of reddit.com, a very useful site for news that's interesting.
You're looking at one particular tree and I'm looking at the forest.
How many people have been arrested for playing a game on a game console? There are several hundred million such consoles out there.
Does it really take a PC to send a photograph to someone? No. Can you send a picture to someone over the Internet if you have a graphic display terminal instead of a PC? Yes.
Send me a link, if you would, to any report you can find of someone being prosecuted for using a terminal to browse an 'illegal website'. And another link, please, of how law enforcement is monitoring 'everybody' who uses terminals. You talk about these things as if they are actually happening and I would like to know if you have any examples at all of these things happening or if you are just making them up.
A browser does not require a PC with an OS, but only a display terminal, i.e., one with an X server (software that delivers the display and input components of remote applications to you) and network link to applications (in this case browsers) already running somewhere else. Then you can do banking and enjoy the world wide web without a PC or local storage. Chatting is available via any of several plug-ins for the Firefox browser.
8 11~name~Photosmart+8050+Photo+Inkjet+Printer~mfg~Q 6351A%23ABA.asp
l
Here's a $69 printer that lets you edit and print your photos without a PC. http://www.pcmall.com/pcmall/shop/detail~dpno~604
Here's a live CD that turns your Windows computer into an X terminal.
http://xlivecd.indiana.edu/
Here's the howto that turns any PC into a network display terminal, and X server. When this is running no use will be made of the hard drive. It will also work if there is no hard drive in the system. It will also work if there is no operating system installed on the computer.
Here, look at this... http://linuxdevices.com/articles/AT7499590573.htm
But, you see, you're not the average user and you're not seeing it from their viewpoint. There are 1,000 of them for every one of you. And for all you know there is so much you don't yet imagine.
For example, you talk about bitmaps. But you disregard remote user-side graphics rendering.
You talk about running X apps remotely. But most X apps designed for desktop users make no provision for serving up displays remotely, hence don't perform well remotely. No surprise there.
You presume a 'monolithic entity'. But this isn't the way it's ever been done or ever will be done. How many web sites are there, a handful or countless millions?
You're thinking timesharing. But that's not how it's going to be done.
You won't need to worry about any of this because all this technology is being designed to ignore you and your attitude about it. So relax.
You listen to the radio programs streamed at you; how can you be guilty of what you listen to, how can you possess what you listen to, how can you violate a copyright by listening to what is streamed to you? How can you have 'illegal self-replicating gridd attacking objects by listening to the radio? How can a judge convict you of a crime for what you listen to on the radio? You need to explain yourself because software is no different than a radio broadcast if it's streamed at your viewer. And, no, it's no joke. This is the way that the delivery of software is moving, surely you can see...
The solution to this problem, and to virtually all of the problems that are associated with computer ownership, is simple and inevitable. Do away with the personal computer.
For most people it is completely unnecessary. For most people all they need is a graphical display terminal with a rich user interface environment that is attached to the Internet and software which is streamed at them, whether in a browser or, as in the case of X, served up to their graphical display terminal.
No hard drive to worry about, nothing police can find in your possession to investigate, charge, prosecute and punish you for, no viruses, no spyware, no adware, no trojan software.
Nobody every got in trouble for watching the most raw, stimulating, raunchy porn on TV and nobody will ever get in trouble for watching what is streamed to their graphics display terminal. After its viewed it just goes right off into the great void. Any software that the average person needs in the future will be streamed directly to their graphics display terminal which is connected directly to the Internet without the need for a local operating system, storage, massive bank of RAM or local copies of application programs.
Users can go anywhere in the world, walk up to any graphics display terminal and have the same software experience regardless of who they are, where they are. No need to download songs or movies, just stream them right to you, just like Television. You don't need a PC to have a TV, you don't need a PC to have a phone, you don't need a PC to receive streaming software. You just need a graphical display terminal. No mess, no fuss. The PC, for the average person, is an unnecessary, expendible component of the software experience in the era of ubiquitous access to the Internet and versatile graphical display terminals.
You guys always do this; you talk about "Linux" but you are really talking about either the X Windows System or you're talking about the thousands of various software tools (such as all the GNU software) in the various distributions or you're talking about the various applications software packages that run on Linux and X, most of which also run on, for example, BSD and X.
Everybody here at Slashdot knows this already but, still, and probably forever, most people won't know this. So, is this OK? I don't think so. Linux is the heart but X is the blood, lungs, bones, muscle and skin. Let's get over being shy or ignorant about the importance of X, its uniqueness as a network display protocol, the renaissance in X development, the activity in X related projects like cairo, SVG, all things GL (OpenGL,XGL, AIXGL), Desktop environments based on X, etc..
Let's get over being shy about the importance of the UNIX component model and the valuable tool extensions that make this approach so much more useful than the monolithic approaches of other operating environments, such as rsync, scripting, et al.. And lastly, let's start talking about the absolute need for network computing. That's the computing paradigm of the present and the future. Let's talk about how so much of Linux, X, rsync (for example) and the applications are already so well suited for making use of and advancing that approach to software. Network computing is replacing the desktop as the next 'big thing', so let's start talking about that, why don't we? The game console manufacturers have recognized and accepted this, so why don't we accept that this is also true for applications?
What you're describing sounds an awful lot like the new Hot-E from http://www.thinlinx.com/ This product has been in development for a while and it's now in production. I'm using it to do Linux/X touchscreen point of sale for restaurants, bars and retail.