Google vs. Microsoft On the Desktop 222
Michael_Curator writes "Gary Edwards, president of the now-defunct Open Document Foundation, helps sort out the challenges Google faces displacing Microsoft on the desktop, pitting the strengths of Microsoft's proprietary stack against the developer candy that HTML 5 represents."
Developer candy? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah developer candy is first on my list when looking at a product as an end user. I mean stuff security, reliability, etc. That's just all rubbish when I can make my developers even more diabetic.
Who comes up with this nonsense?
Re:Hate to be a spoilsport but (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft actually contributed lots to HTML 5, at least according to Chris Wilson (Software Architect for IE)
Someone had to introduce problems, incompatibilities, and inconsistency or it wouldn't be a proper standard.
Re:Take away the cloud (Score:2, Funny)
You're interning at MSFT? Or internalizing? Both?
Re:Take away the cloud (Score:4, Funny)
Dude the main thing is that people click on an icon that shows a diskette!
Re:Take away the cloud (Score:5, Funny)
Indeed, "Save to the cloud" should be renamed to "Vaporize".
Re:Take away the cloud (Score:5, Funny)
Getting rid of stupid clients would be godsent for any admin in the world. Having all applications in the browser would be a huge step forward.
You try, getting three different clients working against a database from the same vendor working properly. They all crave different versions of dotnet, java or whatnot and any new version of the client software demands countless hours of testing just about every possible combination of apps. Upgrades are pure nightmare. Couple this with locked down desktops, profiles that has to be managed and policies that needs hard testing before you alter a single setting.
Getting rid of all those problems alone would be worth serious money for any company. Added benefit would be that backend services would be totally decoupled from what OS the client runs. Microsoft will fight this for all they are worth.
Getting rid of stupid houses would be a godsend for any contractor in the world. Having all people inside a mud hut would be a huge step forward.
You try getting three different walls working against the same roof from the same floor working properly. They all crave different stud layout, nails or whatnot and any new wall demands countless hours of planning for just about every possible combination of other walls. Electrical is a pure nightmare. Couple this with locked doors, surfaces that need to be painted and building codes that need hard testing before you can finish a single room.
Getting rid of all those problems alone would be worth serious money for any construction company. Added benefit would be that the extension cord used to steal electricity from neigbors would be totally decoupled from the type of mud hut. Legacy housebuilders will fight this for all they are worth.