So essentially your argument is that all of these automated functions make the process of coding more efficient and we don't want students to use them because if they do they might actually take them to the workplace and work more efficiently there as well.
These sort of arguments could be made for every tool at one time or another:
Microprocessors prevent students from learning how to use random logic.
The use of assemblers prevent students from learning the hex values of machine code.
Compilers prevent students from learning assembly language.
Optimizing compilers prevent students from learning how to write efficient programs.
etc.
The fact is that in the real world the winners take every advantage they can and the losers are left pondering how manly they are by doing things the hard way.
Are you assuming that the IDE is going to write the code for you? That's the only scenario that would invalidate my claim that the code the student writes is sufficient to determine his grade.
I have an idea. Why not let the programs students write in a programming course determine if they pass? Of course the danger with that approach is that students using an IDE might pass the course due to their programming ability and then what would become of your argument?
"If you can not figure out vi, emacs, or any other cli text editor then why should we trust your programming?"
One could also say that if you can't type in machine code directly, we shouldn't trust your programming either. There's no connection between the tools you use and your ability to program.
There's nothing any more "basic" about using a command-line tool for programming than there is using a slide rule for mathematics.
I think there is some misunderstanding about what a real thin client is all about. Sun's thin client (when I looked at them a few years ago) was not something you could just hook up to Internet and start browsing. It required a proprietary Sun server to operate. The thin client was really a loss leader to sell more Sun servers (not that the price was that competitive anyway).
So if you're going to talk about TCO, you have to throw in the cost of buying and maintaining the server. You also have to consider the cost of maintaining the thin client. PC service is a commodity but these thin clients can't be serviced as easily.
The decision to use PCs or thin clients has to be made on a company-by-company basis.
"For a small business who can get a PC at a decent price, a $300 thin client plus the cost of a monitor seems hefty. But when you have a contract and you're locked into certain models of PCs at certain prices (the reality at every major corporation I've worked for) then PCs become more pricey"
"Against Stupidity, the Gods Themselves Contend in Vain". One can only assume that if companies sign stupid contracts for PCs they'd also sign stupid contracts for thin clients as well.
I see your broader point about companies not doing what's best, but I still don't see any "raw" economic advantage of thin clients over PCs.
"The era of "The network is the computer" though long possible in *nix, is just now being forced upon, and in many ways leaving Windows behind. With a *nix box (and Apple runs *nix with a hobbled desktop, looks good though) you can actually have a display in location A and apps running on B C D E F and the data stored on a SAN or NAS system in location G."
The scenario you describe doesn't really match with the phrase "the network is the computer". In any case, just because you can do something doesn't mean it's useful in general. How does your scenario fit in as a replacement for what average people do with PCs today?
"The miniaturization is effectively going to put the PC in your pocket [figuratively]."
By figuratively I guess you mean "NOT". A cell phone or PDA device will never be a replacement for a PC unless or bodies shrink to fit. Even in that case we'd still be lugging around a big device relatively.
This is why convergence has been talked about for a decade but still hasn't been achieved: the human body is part of the problem domain and no electronics or software technology can change that fact.
If you wish to prove I'm wrong, I suggest you quote prices for thin clients so we can compare them to PC prices.
Your company may or may not be doing the right thing in buying instead of building (the cost of your time including overhead may make building your own PC more expensive then buying it from Dell), but it really doesn't have anything to do with cost of thin clients vs. PCs.
Of course, pure PDA's couldn't be used to check-in guests because that's not part of their functionality. What you really mean by PDA's is the modern definition: A scaled down PC. Just because a general purpose computer is battery operated and has a small form factor doesn't make it a special purpose machine.
In my view most modern PDA's are essentially PC's as well (not necessarily running Windows).
It really depends on the scenario. A PC-like device is not optimal for some applications for the same reasons that a plain PC isn't. Merely making a good integration of "workstation" and "device" software isn't going to improve things much.
Will we even be using browsers in 10 years? I don't know. People can always use legacy software for legacy content, there are good reasons not to lug around ancient history.
If compatibility with IE 12 was a requirement, I'd say "sorry we'll fix it". If it's not a requirement I'd say politely "compatiblity with IE 12 is not a requirement, should we alter the requirements document to include it?"
Since bosses don't have any control over the browser vendors, but they do over you, it's your problem by defintion.
Sure, they are cases where you can't do what the customer wants because it would be unethical, illegal, or dangerous. However, nobody ever died because there were minor rendering flaws in a browser.
OK, so in your particular case keeping the customer happy is not the motivation. In that case, you have to decide the importance of keeping your boss happy. It's very common that doing what's right for your company and doing what your boss wants are different things. Usually doing the latter is more effective in keeping your job than the former.
Slashdot Mirror
So essentially your argument is that all of these automated functions make the process of coding more efficient and we don't want students to use them because if they do they might actually take them to the workplace and work more efficiently there as well.
These sort of arguments could be made for every tool at one time or another:
Microprocessors prevent students from learning how to use random logic.
The use of assemblers prevent students from learning the hex values of machine code.
Compilers prevent students from learning assembly language.
Optimizing compilers prevent students from learning how to write efficient programs.
etc.
The fact is that in the real world the winners take every advantage they can and the losers are left pondering how manly they are by doing things the hard way.
Are you assuming that the IDE is going to write the code for you? That's the only scenario that would invalidate my claim that the code the student writes is sufficient to determine his grade.
I have an idea. Why not let the programs students write in a programming course determine if they pass? Of course the danger with that approach is that students using an IDE might pass the course due to their programming ability and then what would become of your argument?
"If you can not figure out vi, emacs, or any other cli text editor then why should we trust your programming?"
One could also say that if you can't type in machine code directly, we shouldn't trust your programming either. There's no connection between the tools you use and your ability to program.
There's nothing any more "basic" about using a command-line tool for programming than there is using a slide rule for mathematics.
Mine is the first post that mentioned the CIA, how can it be redundant?
wants to do too.
I don't think it means, what you think it means.
"The MS suite is very very common indeed. After 20+ years of single choice market this is trivial."
Come on, MS Office didn't even exist until 1989. Typical slashdot history rewriting.
So you ignore today's 80% market in favor of the 20% market just in case the 80% drops to 75%?
I think there is some misunderstanding about what a real thin client is all about. Sun's thin client (when I looked at them a few years ago) was not something you could just hook up to Internet and start browsing. It required a proprietary Sun server to operate. The thin client was really a loss leader to sell more Sun servers (not that the price was that competitive anyway).
So if you're going to talk about TCO, you have to throw in the cost of buying and maintaining the server. You also have to consider the cost of maintaining the thin client. PC service is a commodity but these thin clients can't be serviced as easily.
The decision to use PCs or thin clients has to be made on a company-by-company basis.
Merely replacing a PC with a fridge, cellphone, TIVO or XBox doesn't satisify the claim that "The network is the computer".
"What else would be the meaning of the network is the computer"
It's advertising slogan, it has the same meaning as "Things go better with Coke", i.e. buy our product.
"For a small business who can get a PC at a decent price, a $300 thin client plus the cost of a monitor seems hefty. But when you have a contract and you're locked into certain models of PCs at certain prices (the reality at every major corporation I've worked for) then PCs become more pricey"
"Against Stupidity, the Gods Themselves Contend in Vain". One can only assume that if companies sign stupid contracts for PCs they'd also sign stupid contracts for thin clients as well.
I see your broader point about companies not doing what's best, but I still don't see any "raw" economic advantage of thin clients over PCs.
"The era of "The network is the computer" though long possible in *nix, is just now being forced upon, and in many ways leaving Windows behind. With a *nix box (and Apple runs *nix with a hobbled desktop, looks good though) you can actually have a display in location A and apps running on B C D E F and the data stored on a SAN or NAS system in location G."
The scenario you describe doesn't really match with the phrase "the network is the computer". In any case, just because you can do something doesn't mean it's useful in general. How does your scenario fit in as a replacement for what average people do with PCs today?
Complain to Intel. Intel was the one that decided the 8088 could only address 1MB.
"The miniaturization is effectively going to put the PC in your pocket [figuratively]."
By figuratively I guess you mean "NOT". A cell phone or PDA device will never be a replacement for a PC unless or bodies shrink to fit. Even in that case we'd still be lugging around a big device relatively.
This is why convergence has been talked about for a decade but still hasn't been achieved: the human body is part of the problem domain and no electronics or software technology can change that fact.
If you wish to prove I'm wrong, I suggest you quote prices for thin clients so we can compare them to PC prices.
Your company may or may not be doing the right thing in buying instead of building (the cost of your time including overhead may make building your own PC more expensive then buying it from Dell), but it really doesn't have anything to do with cost of thin clients vs. PCs.
Of course, pure PDA's couldn't be used to check-in guests because that's not part of their functionality. What you really mean by PDA's is the modern definition: A scaled down PC. Just because a general purpose computer is battery operated and has a small form factor doesn't make it a special purpose machine.
In my view most modern PDA's are essentially PC's as well (not necessarily running Windows).
It really depends on the scenario. A PC-like device is not optimal for some applications for the same reasons that a plain PC isn't. Merely making a good integration of "workstation" and "device" software isn't going to improve things much.
That's the traditional role of embedded systems.
In many cases, the thin client is more expensive than a PC. I don't see how a product with fewer capabilities and a higher price qualifies as "best".
If "The Network is the Computer" how do I plug my monitor, mouse, and keyboard into my cable modem?
Will we even be using browsers in 10 years? I don't know. People can always use legacy software for legacy content, there are good reasons not to lug around ancient history.
If compatibility with IE 12 was a requirement, I'd say "sorry we'll fix it". If it's not a requirement I'd say politely "compatiblity with IE 12 is not a requirement, should we alter the requirements document to include it?"
Since bosses don't have any control over the browser vendors, but they do over you, it's your problem by defintion.
Sure, they are cases where you can't do what the customer wants because it would be unethical, illegal, or dangerous. However, nobody ever died because there were minor rendering flaws in a browser.
OK, so in your particular case keeping the customer happy is not the motivation. In that case, you have to decide the importance of keeping your boss happy. It's very common that doing what's right for your company and doing what your boss wants are different things. Usually doing the latter is more effective in keeping your job than the former.