begin quoting Andrew Lentvorski as of Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 10:14:49AM -0700: > On Apr 20, 2005, at 9:16 AM, Stewart Stremler wrote: > >"Would you rather have your data-storage service and IMAP provider > >lose all of your data and all of your email, or would you rather have > >your machine blow up?" > > Umm, I'll take "Neither" for $200, Alex ...
<laugh> > However, Gmail is less likely to lose my email data than even I am. > I do backups occasionally. Gmail has everything in full RAID > configuration and will effectively never crash. Some practices scale up. When you've got thousands of users, RAID is easier to justify. > >Web+Email doesn't need a computer. It needs a thin client. You can > >do away with local disk (except for cashing) entirely. > > I agree. Almost every normal user I know would rather use the normal > web interface for these than any local client. I personally can't stand "web-mail", but that's me. I'm not a fan of the mouse... it's useful for changing focus... and that's about it. > >The non-technical users I have in mind have documents, spreadsheets, > >financial information, email, and digital pictures (lots and lots) as > >data. If the system were to gulp all that data and throw it away, > >they'd be unhappy. If the system were rendered unusable (which > >happens), they're not happy, but as their data isn't lost, it's no > >big deal. > > The only one of those that still needs a local client are digital > pictures. Everything else *could* be a web application. Even the pictures could, with some work, be pushed into a web-app. -Stewart "Would you really want your finances on gmoney.com?" Stremler
pgp685ZJ5Kg0B.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
