Just like Google, anybody saying one bad word against the slashbot groupthink that RoR is the second coming gets modded into oblivion.
As with Google, the people posting negative comments about RoR are at least as negative as those posting positive comments, although for some reason its only those posting negative comments that portray the other side as "the Slashbot groupthink" and pretend to be a small oppressed group fighting the Man.
That wouldn't be the only time that Rails has been sloppy in choosing the right HTTP method to use. When they implemented REST, they got PUT and POST backwards. Compare with CouchDB, which gets it right: PUT to create and POST to update a record.
PUT and POST don't map perfectly to Create and Update.
PUT should be used (per the HTTP spec) where the URI to which the PUT is conducted will be the URI of the resource provided. Clearly, this can make sense for either creates or updates in certain cases (creates where the requester has control of the URI or has "reserved" it somehow in advance, updates where you are doing a replace of an existing resource.)
POST should be used where the content is added to the resource at the URI provided, which can makes sense for updates that add information or creating a sub-element of a collection identified by the URI to which the POST is applied.
As long as you follow the semantics of the HTTP spec -- which Rails REST implementation does -- I don't see how you can say that it is "wrong". I'm not familiar with CouchDB, but it seems harder to have a good way to do Create with PUT, since PUT requires knowing the URI at which the resource "lives", which is easy for updates, but harder when you are asking some application to create the resource initially.
First, I truly dislike "convention over configuration". The main problem there is that they "convention" they use is far too limited for any sizable application. It may be sufficient for a blog web app, or a bug tracker, or small-scale applications like that. But we now have one web app with over 900 controllers, and "convention" falls apart at this size. Sure, we probably should refactor our app, but we're not in a position to do so at the moment.
"Convention over configuration" in Rails generally doesn't mean that there aren't elegant methods to do configuration for the cases where convention isn't sufficient, it means for the (very large parts of most apps) parts where sensible defaults are sufficient, you don't need to have boilerplate configuration.
The same goes for ActiveRecord. It's great in simple cases, but falls apart rapidly when you're developing larger web apps, especially when you're performing complex data retrieval.
This is true, but there are plenty of open source Ruby ORMs that can be dropped into Rails in place of ActiveRecord that are better in the places AR is weak (Sequel is, I think, the best.)
And like it or not, the performance of Ruby is quite poor. We actually had to purchase some additional hardware to handle the extra load after converting an old Java-based web app to Ruby on Rails.
Although, in many cases where the performance of Ruby on Rails is at issue, the problem is either configuration or Rails issues, not Ruby, this is still a real issue. There are a couple of things to be aware of: 1) With dynamic languages like Ruby vs. static languages like Java, there is usually a trade-off of performance (and thus hardware and hardware support cost) with ease of maintenance and new development (and, thus, development/maintenance staff costs). 2) Still, as Ruby features have mostly stabilized, more and more of the focus of Ruby implementations is on improving performance. That's also true of Rails to an extent (though Rails is less feature-stable, recent version have done a lot of work focussed on performance, and a big part of Rails 3.0 was merging with Merb on of whose main advantages over Rails was performance.)
Actually Groovy and Grails are Java native. No need to interpret via JRuby.
There is no reason to "interpret" via JRuby in any case. JRuby provides an AOT compiler (jrubyc) that compiles Ruby code to Java bytecode; in addition, the normal mode of operation for JRuby is to do JIT compilation on method bodies when first encountered and then execute the compiled method from then on.
The objection that the DoJ and other companies have is that Google is being granted a wide license by way of a class action settlement. Normally a company can't make a licensing agreement with all copyright owners without contacting each and every one of them. But since this is a class action settlement, all members of the class are automatically opted in to the agreement.
Because it is a class action, all members of the class had notice and the opportunity to opt-out of the litigation; the notice was required to include a notice that failure to opt-out could result in permanent effects to their legal rights under the claim at issue as a result of whatever resolution was reached in the case.
Property laws and Copyright laws are mutually exclusive.
If that was true, you couldn't have both copyright laws and property laws, which is obviously untrue.
You probably mean that property laws and copyright laws are disjoint sets, such that no copyright law is a property law and vice versa, but this is also untrue. Copyright laws are a subset of intellectual property laws (along with, e.g., patent laws), which are a subset of intangible personal property laws (along with, e.g., laws governing securities), which are in turn a subset of personal property laws (along with laws governing tangible personal property), which are in turn a subset of property laws (along with laws governing real property.)
We could completely nullify all copyrights without having any effect on property laws whatsoever.
This is quite clearly false, since all copyright laws are property laws (though not all property laws are copyright laws), so any change to any copyright law is also a change to a property law.
There is no need for intellectual property anymore. Information is moving and changing to fast.
One might make a coherent argument that we need different intellectual property laws for this reason, but I don't see a coherent argument that we don't need intellectual property stemming from the pace of information moving and changing.
If Google wants to strike a deal with me, then why are they litigating with other people?
If you are one of the people they are proposing a deal with (who are exactly coextensive with the members of the class litigating against them), they aren't litigating with other people. Its a class action suit against them, which means if you are a member of the defined class and haven't actively opted out of the action, they are (involuntarily, as they are the target of the suit) litigating against you (or, specifically, against your legal representatives in the matter at issue.)
And if you have opted out of the class, of course, they aren't proposing a deal with you at all, since, by definition, the resolution of a class action suit (by settlement or otherwise) is not binding against people who are not parties to the suit, including potential class members who opted out of the class.
The apps are tested to ensure they follow basic UI guidelines and that they fail gracefully when connectivity is limited or unavailable. Purely as a user, what's not to like?
The way Apple demands that popular applications be "updated" to remove basic functionality (e.g., most recently, USB-based transfers for GoodReader and Stanza.)
Yes, it does depend on what company does it. Anti-competitive behavior is legal until you're a monopoly, then its not.
Under US federal law, certain types of anticompetitive behavior are only illegal when they are leveraging an existing monopoly to monopolize some other area (just about any type of behavior which does that is illegal), and other types of anticompetitive behavior are illegal in and of themselves. Other jurisdictions may or may not follow this pattern.
Of course, being illegal doesn't stop things from being done, it just means that there might be some consequences down the road when they are done.
Android, while Google popularized it (after purchasing Android, Inc.) and provides its own apps that are used on most Android phones, is the Open Handset Alliance's Linux-based OS now, not Google's.
Can most programmes really be written to take advantage of so many cores?
You don't need most programs to benefit from more cores; you just need a few commonly used ones to.
Or for people to run different programs simultaneously, since separate programs that run at the same time naturally benefit from multiple CPUs without being written especially to do so.
Mobility. While a laptop is mobile, a tablet is dramatically more so. Can you walk and use your laptop? Nope.
I certainly can walk and use my netbook; I could use it even better if the trackpad interpretation automatically rotated along with screen rotation. Though, frankly, if I wanted to use a mobile computing device while walking, I'd prefer something the size and form factor of an smartphone, iPod Touch, or small UMPC to either a netbook or a large tablet. And, I suspect, almost everyone who has a desire for a mobile computing device to use while walking who could justify spending the $500+ to purchase an iPad if they didn't already have that role filled, already has a smartphone, iTouch, or some compact UMPC.
The fact that the iPad is half the weight, half the thickness, and has almost 2x the battery life is not something you can easily ignore in a device who's primary goal is to be portable. To setup a litmus test, try to argue that using a netbook to reply to an email while walking through an airport is less awkward than using a touchscreen tablet in the same situation.
IMO, anything bigger than a typical smartphone is unusable for that purpose, so arguing which of two unusable things is worse is somewhat pointless.
If, as you say, the "primary goal is to be portable", the smartphones, PDAs, and devices like Apple's own iPod Touch have the iPad beaten hands-down.
If the goal is to be broadly functional while maintaining a high degree of portability (but short of that of a pocket device), I think netbooks have the iPad beaten hands down.
While the iPad is lighter than most netbooks, I think they are equivalent for most users in terms of basic portability: (1) both are too big to use like a pocket device -- hold a device completely, or nearly so, in the palm of hand hand while working it with the other, or hold on the fingers of both hands and work it with the thumbs. (2) both are too big to carry in a typical pocket or on a belt clip. (3) both are small enough to not be a burden carried in a bag or briefcase
Sounds like Facebook rewrote PHP and then invited PHP core developers to adopt it as their core development platform? I can't imagine that went over all that well...
Not sure why it wouldn't, unless its something particular about the PHP core team. YARV and Rubinius started life as third-party ground-up reimplementations of Ruby, and YARV was adopted as the main Ruby interpreter for 1.9, and there has been lots of talk about Rubinius replacing YARV in the future.
So do their competitors. But if people who know specifically what they want to buy can't find it on Amazon, they are more likely to start using one of Amazon's competitors.
And double-by-the-way, you can always use DRM removers to strip DRM from both AZW (Amazon Kindle format) and MOBI (MobiPocket) files, which are the two dominant ebook file formats at ebook stores.
IME, places that sell ebooks that aren't run by a company selling ereaders (which sell in the preferred format for the reader), without exception, sell one or both of epub and PDF, and maybe support some other format.
Where is Macmillan going to make up the revenue from sales of print books that they'll forfeit by not being on the Amazon store?
If Amazon's print coverage isn't comprehensive, they lose marketshare to their competitors in that space (particularly Barnes & Noble, who also has an ebook store as well.) Amazon can't really afford to delist every major publisher that makes a deal with Apple unless very few do, and if they try that approach and don't quickly kill the iPad, they stand to lose even if Apple doesn't win, because Apple and Amazon aren't the only players in the market.
I wouldn't be surprised if iPad e-books cost even more than on Kindle, since they're higher resolution and in color.
The kindle DX -- the version that is similar in size to the iPad, and a little less expensive -- has greater resolution than the iPad (both in number of pixels and pixel density), the regular Kindle has greater pixel density than the iPad (150ppi vs. 132ppi) and is more portable. So I'm not at all sure what you mean here.
I've been using One Note for quite some time. I've never had the slightest urge to have a touchscreen with it. Nor have I ever thought it would be even half as useful without a keyboard. How is it "the killer tablet app"?
I have to admit, I don't really understand where you're coming from, here. First, the OS updates are infrequent. Honestly, they're not typically that big of deal, either. They're optional. If you're going to make that a requirement, then what about updating your netbook to Windows 7? You're not doing that without a computer, either.
Actually, what I'd need to do that if I wanted to is an external optical drive, not another computer. (At least, AFAIK, you need an optical drive to do a Win7 update, there may be some other means I don't know about.)
Certainly, I've already -- and I only got the computer this week -- added Ubuntu 9.10 to it alongside Windows (via Wubi) without either another computer or an optical drive.
Second, I'm not sure where this 'only computer' requirement came from.
From reality. There are people that buy netbooks as their only computer, because it does what they need.
It's not something Apple's pushing
Right, in fact, its something Apple flat out says that the iPad can't do. Along with the things the iPad is poorly suited to that netbooks are well suited for, this is why I believe the idea posited in TFS of the iPad displacing netbooks rather than -- assuming it succeeds -- coexisting alongside them is not particularly credible.
That's not what you'd buy a netbook or a tablet for. You'd buy either because you have a need where a portable device would work. If you need a keyboard to take notes in a meeting, blammo, netbook. If you need to read docs, browse the web, view quicktimes etc (which would help me at my job), the iPad would potentially kick its butt.
I'm having trouble seeing how an iPad would kick a netbooks butt at browsing the web, viewing quicktimes, or reading docs.
A netbook you have to unfold, set on a surface, then get the mouse out.
Unfold, sure. I can use mine in my hand, and I've yet to see a netbook that requires an external mouse (sure, most support one -- or anything else you feel like plugging into their USB ports -- but they are fully functional without one. They have touchpads for a reason.
Sure, Its more efficient for heavy use to set it on a surface -- particularly if I'm going to be doing heavy typing. But if I'm going to be doing that with an iPad with anything like the same facility, I need to setup the stand for the display and the dock-connnected keyboard accessory, which is a lot more deployment than for the netbook.
Additionally, the iPad is almost all screen, so your PDF viewing would actually be a better experience.
I dunno, I prefer a netbook for that. Sure, the iPod is all -- 9.7", 1024x768 -- screen. My netbook is only half screen, but that half is 11.6", 1366x768. Held like a book in the left hand, page controls worked with the right, its a decent PDF reading experience. Not ideal -- I'd prefer a bigger, e-Ink reader device. But not something that makes me wish I had a smaller LCD screen, either.
You're right that it's not at versatile at being 'creative', but I think you give too much credit to netbooks for this. I mean, really, are you going to do concept paintings on one? No. I've seen a number of netbook users over the last year or two and it's always about instant messaging, email, or hulu.
The most common thing I've seen people doing with netbooks over the years is taking notes in meetings -- which, in fact, is what sold me on the one I'm using right now. I wouldn't really want to use a touch-screen keyboard for that -- there's a pretty big advantage to tactile feedback.
There are benefits to it. Anybody with an iPhone or an iPod Touch can see the potential.
I have an iPhone. That makes me very conscious of both the possibilities and the limitation of the interface style. I think the iPad will carve a decent market niche out for itself, but I don't think it has the slightest chance of displacing netbooks in general because, price aside, the things its good at aren't the things netbooks are best at. Their niches are different. The markets overlap somewwhat (especially now that UMPCs that aren't notebook-style and tablet convertibles are being marketed as "netbooks"), but there is still quite a bit where they don't.
Are you actually having a fully functional standby on your netbook? Which OS? The only laptop I've ever had that had a standby that worked for more than a few weeks after purchase was my Mac. In Windows land it's been my experience that you're risking having to do a full reboot every time yous standby.
I've never had a problem, with either this netbook -- which I've only had a few days -- or either of the two previous WinXP laptops I've had (one of which eventually mostly died for other reasons) with standby. Linux, sure, there I've seen problems with standby on laptops -- though Ubuntu 9.10 seems much better than previous versions -- but not Windows.
I don't understand this statement. I haven't synced my iPhone in ages, but I've installed plenty of things on it.
For iPhone, the two things for which a computer with iTunes is required that I see as basic functionality are, IIRC, (1) initial activation of some functionality, and (2) -- which I'm more sure of -- OS updates. From what I've heard, the iPad will be similarly dependent on iTunes, thus the Mac and Windows system requirements on the iPad tech specs. Its not a constant dependency, but its something that makes an iPad not viable as the only computer for a user.
Slashdot Mirror
As with Google, the people posting negative comments about RoR are at least as negative as those posting positive comments, although for some reason its only those posting negative comments that portray the other side as "the Slashbot groupthink" and pretend to be a small oppressed group fighting the Man.
PUT and POST don't map perfectly to Create and Update.
PUT should be used (per the HTTP spec) where the URI to which the PUT is conducted will be the URI of the resource provided. Clearly, this can make sense for either creates or updates in certain cases (creates where the requester has control of the URI or has "reserved" it somehow in advance, updates where you are doing a replace of an existing resource.)
POST should be used where the content is added to the resource at the URI provided, which can makes sense for updates that add information or creating a sub-element of a collection identified by the URI to which the POST is applied.
As long as you follow the semantics of the HTTP spec -- which Rails REST implementation does -- I don't see how you can say that it is "wrong". I'm not familiar with CouchDB, but it seems harder to have a good way to do Create with PUT, since PUT requires knowing the URI at which the resource "lives", which is easy for updates, but harder when you are asking some application to create the resource initially.
"Convention over configuration" in Rails generally doesn't mean that there aren't elegant methods to do configuration for the cases where convention isn't sufficient, it means for the (very large parts of most apps) parts where sensible defaults are sufficient, you don't need to have boilerplate configuration.
This is true, but there are plenty of open source Ruby ORMs that can be dropped into Rails in place of ActiveRecord that are better in the places AR is weak (Sequel is, I think, the best.)
Although, in many cases where the performance of Ruby on Rails is at issue, the problem is either configuration or Rails issues, not Ruby, this is still a real issue. There are a couple of things to be aware of:
1) With dynamic languages like Ruby vs. static languages like Java, there is usually a trade-off of performance (and thus hardware and hardware support cost) with ease of maintenance and new development (and, thus, development/maintenance staff costs).
2) Still, as Ruby features have mostly stabilized, more and more of the focus of Ruby implementations is on improving performance. That's also true of Rails to an extent (though Rails is less feature-stable, recent version have done a lot of work focussed on performance, and a big part of Rails 3.0 was merging with Merb on of whose main advantages over Rails was performance.)
There is no reason to "interpret" via JRuby in any case. JRuby provides an AOT compiler (jrubyc) that compiles Ruby code to Java bytecode; in addition, the normal mode of operation for JRuby is to do JIT compilation on method bodies when first encountered and then execute the compiled method from then on.
Because it is a class action, all members of the class had notice and the opportunity to opt-out of the litigation; the notice was required to include a notice that failure to opt-out could result in permanent effects to their legal rights under the claim at issue as a result of whatever resolution was reached in the case.
If that was true, you couldn't have both copyright laws and property laws, which is obviously untrue.
You probably mean that property laws and copyright laws are disjoint sets, such that no copyright law is a property law and vice versa, but this is also untrue. Copyright laws are a subset of intellectual property laws (along with, e.g., patent laws), which are a subset of intangible personal property laws (along with, e.g., laws governing securities), which are in turn a subset of personal property laws (along with laws governing tangible personal property), which are in turn a subset of property laws (along with laws governing real property.)
This is quite clearly false, since all copyright laws are property laws (though not all property laws are copyright laws), so any change to any copyright law is also a change to a property law.
One might make a coherent argument that we need different intellectual property laws for this reason, but I don't see a coherent argument that we don't need intellectual property stemming from the pace of information moving and changing.
If you are one of the people they are proposing a deal with (who are exactly coextensive with the members of the class litigating against them), they aren't litigating with other people. Its a class action suit against them, which means if you are a member of the defined class and haven't actively opted out of the action, they are (involuntarily, as they are the target of the suit) litigating against you (or, specifically, against your legal representatives in the matter at issue.)
And if you have opted out of the class, of course, they aren't proposing a deal with you at all, since, by definition, the resolution of a class action suit (by settlement or otherwise) is not binding against people who are not parties to the suit, including potential class members who opted out of the class.
The way Apple demands that popular applications be "updated" to remove basic functionality (e.g., most recently, USB-based transfers for GoodReader and Stanza.)
The "average" user doesn't both:
(a) use the iTunes App Store, and
(b) have an Android phone.
The average user that meets both of those requirements (without which this is a non-issue), I would imagine, is quite aware of that.
Under US federal law, certain types of anticompetitive behavior are only illegal when they are leveraging an existing monopoly to monopolize some other area (just about any type of behavior which does that is illegal), and other types of anticompetitive behavior are illegal in and of themselves. Other jurisdictions may or may not follow this pattern.
Of course, being illegal doesn't stop things from being done, it just means that there might be some consequences down the road when they are done.
From TFS:
Android, while Google popularized it (after purchasing Android, Inc.) and provides its own apps that are used on most Android phones, is the Open Handset Alliance's Linux-based OS now, not Google's.
You don't need most programs to benefit from more cores; you just need a few commonly used ones to.
Or for people to run different programs simultaneously, since separate programs that run at the same time naturally benefit from multiple CPUs without being written especially to do so.
Google's flagship product, depending on how you look at it, is either adwords or the search page at www.google.com.
I certainly can walk and use my netbook; I could use it even better if the trackpad interpretation automatically rotated along with screen rotation. Though, frankly, if I wanted to use a mobile computing device while walking, I'd prefer something the size and form factor of an smartphone, iPod Touch, or small UMPC to either a netbook or a large tablet. And, I suspect, almost everyone who has a desire for a mobile computing device to use while walking who could justify spending the $500+ to purchase an iPad if they didn't already have that role filled, already has a smartphone, iTouch, or some compact UMPC.
IMO, anything bigger than a typical smartphone is unusable for that purpose, so arguing which of two unusable things is worse is somewhat pointless.
If, as you say, the "primary goal is to be portable", the smartphones, PDAs, and devices like Apple's own iPod Touch have the iPad beaten hands-down.
If the goal is to be broadly functional while maintaining a high degree of portability (but short of that of a pocket device), I think netbooks have the iPad beaten hands down.
While the iPad is lighter than most netbooks, I think they are equivalent for most users in terms of basic portability:
(1) both are too big to use like a pocket device -- hold a device completely, or nearly so, in the palm of hand hand while working it with the other, or hold on the fingers of both hands and work it with the thumbs.
(2) both are too big to carry in a typical pocket or on a belt clip.
(3) both are small enough to not be a burden carried in a bag or briefcase
Not sure why it wouldn't, unless its something particular about the PHP core team. YARV and Rubinius started life as third-party ground-up reimplementations of Ruby, and YARV was adopted as the main Ruby interpreter for 1.9, and there has been lots of talk about Rubinius replacing YARV in the future.
So do their competitors. But if people who know specifically what they want to buy can't find it on Amazon, they are more likely to start using one of Amazon's competitors.
IME, places that sell ebooks that aren't run by a company selling ereaders (which sell in the preferred format for the reader), without exception, sell one or both of epub and PDF, and maybe support some other format.
If Amazon's print coverage isn't comprehensive, they lose marketshare to their competitors in that space (particularly Barnes & Noble, who also has an ebook store as well.) Amazon can't really afford to delist every major publisher that makes a deal with Apple unless very few do, and if they try that approach and don't quickly kill the iPad, they stand to lose even if Apple doesn't win, because Apple and Amazon aren't the only players in the market.
The kindle DX -- the version that is similar in size to the iPad, and a little less expensive -- has greater resolution than the iPad (both in number of pixels and pixel density), the regular Kindle has greater pixel density than the iPad (150ppi vs. 132ppi) and is more portable. So I'm not at all sure what you mean here.
Barnes and Noble, especially if Amazon's tactics include delisting print publishers that sign deals with Apple for ebooks.
I've been using One Note for quite some time. I've never had the slightest urge to have a touchscreen with it. Nor have I ever thought it would be even half as useful without a keyboard. How is it "the killer tablet app"?
Actually, what I'd need to do that if I wanted to is an external optical drive, not another computer. (At least, AFAIK, you need an optical drive to do a Win7 update, there may be some other means I don't know about.)
Certainly, I've already -- and I only got the computer this week -- added Ubuntu 9.10 to it alongside Windows (via Wubi) without either another computer or an optical drive.
From reality. There are people that buy netbooks as their only computer, because it does what they need.
Right, in fact, its something Apple flat out says that the iPad can't do. Along with the things the iPad is poorly suited to that netbooks are well suited for, this is why I believe the idea posited in TFS of the iPad displacing netbooks rather than -- assuming it succeeds -- coexisting alongside them is not particularly credible.
I'm having trouble seeing how an iPad would kick a netbooks butt at browsing the web, viewing quicktimes, or reading docs.
A netbook you have to unfold, set on a surface, then get the mouse out.
Unfold, sure. I can use mine in my hand, and I've yet to see a netbook that requires an external mouse (sure, most support one -- or anything else you feel like plugging into their USB ports -- but they are fully functional without one. They have touchpads for a reason.
Sure, Its more efficient for heavy use to set it on a surface -- particularly if I'm going to be doing heavy typing. But if I'm going to be doing that with an iPad with anything like the same facility, I need to setup the stand for the display and the dock-connnected keyboard accessory, which is a lot more deployment than for the netbook.
I dunno, I prefer a netbook for that. Sure, the iPod is all -- 9.7", 1024x768 -- screen. My netbook is only half screen, but that half is 11.6", 1366x768. Held like a book in the left hand, page controls worked with the right, its a decent PDF reading experience. Not ideal --
I'd prefer a bigger, e-Ink reader device. But not something that makes me wish I had a smaller LCD screen, either.
The most common thing I've seen people doing with netbooks over the years is taking notes in meetings -- which, in fact, is what sold me on the one I'm using right now. I wouldn't really want to use a touch-screen keyboard for that -- there's a pretty big advantage to tactile feedback.
I have an iPhone. That makes me very conscious of both the possibilities and the limitation of the interface style. I think the iPad will carve a decent market niche out for itself, but I don't think it has the slightest chance of displacing netbooks in general because, price aside, the things its good at aren't the things netbooks are best at. Their niches are different. The markets overlap somewwhat (especially now that UMPCs that aren't notebook-style and tablet convertibles are being marketed as "netbooks"), but there is still quite a bit where they don't.
I've never had a problem, with either this netbook -- which I've only had a few days -- or either of the two previous WinXP laptops I've had (one of which eventually mostly died for other reasons) with standby. Linux, sure, there I've seen problems with standby on laptops -- though Ubuntu 9.10 seems much better than previous versions -- but not Windows.
For iPhone, the two things for which a computer with iTunes is required that I see as basic functionality are, IIRC, (1) initial activation of some functionality, and (2) -- which I'm more sure of -- OS updates. From what I've heard, the iPad will be similarly dependent on iTunes, thus the Mac and Windows system requirements on the iPad tech specs. Its not a constant dependency, but its something that makes an iPad not viable as the only computer for a user.