Re: OT: Friday Humor: Etiquette Question: Is Fat Client offensive?

[Susan Palmer]

Very impressive !!  Vote for David as entertainment at the new user group.
Remember when all the top guys used to get on stage and do a song.  The
polynesian outfits with the coconuts was particularily memorable.  Granted
... for the rap David ... you'll need appropriately loose clothing and lots
of bling!

That brought a smile to a long week!!

thanks,
Susan

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Easter, David  wrote:

> ** > Now THIN client has improved but will never be quite as good as the
> FAT client but many will continue to overlook that.
>
> I humbly disagree, and I thought the best way to voice that would be in a
> rap.  (Please imagine a posse emphasizing the parts in bold...)
>
>
> I sat down today at my *PC*
>
> Gonna log into my Rem-*E-DY*
>
> But yo’ yo’ dog, what do I see?
>
> My W-U-T is *R-I-P*
>
>
>
> Times have *changed*, tools rear*ranged*
>
> Someone’s got to be de*ranged*
>
> Phat clients are gone, now ain’t that strange
>
> OWA now’s my link to Ex*change*
>
>
>
> I ain’t here to dis’ the web *client*
>
> Not tryin’ to be rude or be de*fiant*
>
> I’m ready to bend, gonna be real *pliant*
>
> Don’t wanna go to jail not bein’ com*pliant*
>
>
>
> Web’s now the *norm*, got to *perform*
>
> Cloud Computing is the *per-fect storm*
>
> It does the work – same function and form
>
> Brings data to the masses, keeps them in*formed*
>
>
>
> So here I go don’t need no *docs*
>
> Just launch IE or *Firefox*
>
> Wow, look at that - this UI *rocks!*
>
> This dope web client *knocks* *off my socks!*
>
> * *
>
> I save time typing ‘cause of auto-com*plete*
>
> And collapsible panels keep *my view* *neat*
>
> Flex-based flashboards?  Man, that’s *sweet*
>
> It’s got fill layout – totally *|_337!  *
>
> * *
>
> New JavaScript engines make it *fast*
>
> This technology’s built to *last*
>
> Yo, I’m sold – my test is *passed*
>
> My expectations it has *surpassed*
>
>
>
> Hey thick client – *C-YA*!  Wouldn’t wanna *be ya*!
>
> Your days are numbered, I guaran*tee ya*
>
> From Sunnyvale to South *Korea*
>
> Fire up that browser – we’ll *B-M-C ya!*
>
>
> -David J. Easter
> Sr. Product Manager, Solution Strategy and Development
> BMC Software, Inc.
>
> The opinions, statements, and/or suggested courses of action expressed in
> this E-mail *DEFINITELY *do not reflect those of BMC Software, Inc.  My
> voluntary participation in this forum is not intended to convey a role as a
> spokesperson, liaison or public relations representative for BMC Software,
> Inc.
>
>
>  --
> *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:
> arsl...@arslist.org] *On Behalf Of *Sanford, Claire
> *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2009 11:13 AM
> *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: Etiquette Question: Is Fat Client offensive?
>
> ** Bravo Susan!  I couldn't have said it better myself!
>
> Go FAT!
>
> What a bunch of sizeists!
>
>  --
> *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:
> arsl...@arslist.org] *On Behalf Of *Susan Palmer
> *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2009 12:33 PM
> *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: Etiquette Question: Is Fat Client offensive?
>
> ** Since '95 I don't recall Remedy ever referring to it as the FAT
> client.  Whenever I heard the term I thought it was an old geek term
> especially once web became more prolific.  And as with most THIN clients in
> the past they did not have the full abilities of the FAT client which was
> many times overlooked since often THIN seemed to be preferred.  But many
> people realized that the FAT client was more fulfilling and rewarding.  Now
> THIN client has improved but will never be quite as good as the FAT client
> but many will continue to overlook that.  Go FAT !!
>
> Susan  :)
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Shyman, Jonathan wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>> No, see, that's no good beacuse it infers the existence of a "smart"
>> client.
>>
>> You know, a client that will fill out most of the fields on a form for
>> you, get you coffee, ask your boss for a raise and tell you it can't open
>> the pod bay doors now.
>>
>> :)
>>
>> J.T. Shyman
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Reiser,
>> John J
>> Sent: Fri 4/17/2009 9:38 AM
>> To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
>> Subject: Re: Etiquette Question: Is Fat Client offensive?
>>
>> How about the dumb client? ARText Ver 1.5
>>
>> ---
>> John J. Reiser
>> Senior Software Development Analyst
>> Remedy Administrator/Developer
>> Lockheed Martin - MS2
>> The star that burns twice as bright burns half as long.
>> Pay close attention and be illuminated by its brilliance. - paraphrased by
>> me
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [
>> mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG ] On Behalf Of Carey
>> Matthew Black
>> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 7:43 AM
>> To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
>> Subject: Re: Etiquette Question: Is Fat Client offensive?
>>
>> Axton,
>>
>> I 

Re: OT: Friday Humor: Etiquette Question: Is Fat Client offensive?

[Juan Ingles]

LOL.I love it!

So, should we call you "P-David", "Easter-Dog", or maybe "theBig DjE?"

Juan Ingles

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Easter, David wrote:

> ** > Now THIN client has improved but will never be quite as good as the
> FAT client but many will continue to overlook that.
>
> I humbly disagree, and I thought the best way to voice that would be in a
> rap.  (Please imagine a posse emphasizing the parts in bold...)
>
>
> I sat down today at my *PC*
>
> Gonna log into my Rem-*E-DY*
>
> But yo’ yo’ dog, what do I see?
>
> My W-U-T is *R-I-P*
>
>
>
> Times have *changed*, tools rear*ranged*
>
> Someone’s got to be de*ranged*
>
> Phat clients are gone, now ain’t that strange
>
> OWA now’s my link to Ex*change*
>
>
>
> I ain’t here to dis’ the web *client*
>
> Not tryin’ to be rude or be de*fiant*
>
> I’m ready to bend, gonna be real *pliant*
>
> Don’t wanna go to jail not bein’ com*pliant*
>
>
>
> Web’s now the *norm*, got to *perform*
>
> Cloud Computing is the *per-fect storm*
>
> It does the work – same function and form
>
> Brings data to the masses, keeps them in*formed*
>
>
>
> So here I go don’t need no *docs*
>
> Just launch IE or *Firefox*
>
> Wow, look at that - this UI *rocks!*
>
> This dope web client *knocks* *off my socks!*
>
> * *
>
> I save time typing ‘cause of auto-com*plete*
>
> And collapsible panels keep *my view* *neat*
>
> Flex-based flashboards?  Man, that’s *sweet*
>
> It’s got fill layout – totally *|_337!  *
>
> * *
>
> New JavaScript engines make it *fast*
>
> This technology’s built to *last*
>
> Yo, I’m sold – my test is *passed*
>
> My expectations it has *surpassed*
>
>
>
> Hey thick client – *C-YA*!  Wouldn’t wanna *be ya*!
>
> Your days are numbered, I guaran*tee ya*
>
> From Sunnyvale to South *Korea*
>
> Fire up that browser – we’ll *B-M-C ya!*
>
>
> -David J. Easter
> Sr. Product Manager, Solution Strategy and Development
> BMC Software, Inc.
>
> The opinions, statements, and/or suggested courses of action expressed in
> this E-mail *DEFINITELY *do not reflect those of BMC Software, Inc.  My
> voluntary participation in this forum is not intended to convey a role as a
> spokesperson, liaison or public relations representative for BMC Software,
> Inc.
>
>
>  --
> *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:
> arsl...@arslist.org] *On Behalf Of *Sanford, Claire
> *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2009 11:13 AM
> *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: Etiquette Question: Is Fat Client offensive?
>
> ** Bravo Susan!  I couldn't have said it better myself!
>
> Go FAT!
>
> What a bunch of sizeists!
>
>  --
> *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:
> arsl...@arslist.org] *On Behalf Of *Susan Palmer
> *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2009 12:33 PM
> *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: Etiquette Question: Is Fat Client offensive?
>
> ** Since '95 I don't recall Remedy ever referring to it as the FAT
> client.  Whenever I heard the term I thought it was an old geek term
> especially once web became more prolific.  And as with most THIN clients in
> the past they did not have the full abilities of the FAT client which was
> many times overlooked since often THIN seemed to be preferred.  But many
> people realized that the FAT client was more fulfilling and rewarding.  Now
> THIN client has improved but will never be quite as good as the FAT client
> but many will continue to overlook that.  Go FAT !!
>
> Susan  :)
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Shyman, Jonathan wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>> No, see, that's no good beacuse it infers the existence of a "smart"
>> client.
>>
>> You know, a client that will fill out most of the fields on a form for
>> you, get you coffee, ask your boss for a raise and tell you it can't open
>> the pod bay doors now.
>>
>> :)
>>
>> J.T. Shyman
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Reiser,
>> John J
>> Sent: Fri 4/17/2009 9:38 AM
>> To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
>> Subject: Re: Etiquette Question: Is Fat Client offensive?
>>
>> How about the dumb client? ARText Ver 1.5
>>
>> ---
>> John J. Reiser
>> Senior Software Development Analyst
>> Remedy Administrator/Developer
>> Lockheed Martin - MS2
>> The star that burns twice as bright burns half as long.
>> Pay close attention and be illuminated by its brilliance. - paraphrased by
>> me
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [
>> mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG ] On Behalf Of Carey
>> Matthew Black
>> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 7:43 AM
>> To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
>> Subject: Re: Etiquette Question: Is Fat Client offensive?
>>
>> Axton,
>>
>> I think I was more like this:
>>
>> RemedyWeb was the "thick web client" (applet based), (AKA "Fat web
>> client")
>>
>> ARWeb was the "thin web client" (DHTML/Javascript based)
>>
>> WUT was the v4 Windows User Tool (Maybe also called the "FAT client".
>> Note it

Re: OT: Friday Humor: Etiquette Question: Is Fat Client offensive?

[John Sundberg]

Most x l nt



Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 17, 2009, at 2:13 PM, "Easter, David"   
wrote:



**
> Now THIN client has improved but will never be quite as good as  
the FAT client but many will continue to overlook that.


I humbly disagree, and I thought the best way to voice that would be  
in a rap.  (Please imagine a posse emphasizing the parts in bold...)


I sat down today at my PC
Gonna log into my Rem-E-DY
But yo’ yo’ dog, what do I see?
My W-U-T is R-I-P

Times have changed, tools rearranged
Someone’s got to be deranged
Phat clients are gone, now ain’t that strange
OWA now’s my link to Exchange

I ain’t here to dis’ the web client
Not tryin’ to be rude or be defiant
I’m ready to bend, gonna be real pliant
Don’t wanna go to jail not bein’ compliant

Web’s now the norm, got to perform
Cloud Computing is the per-fect storm
It does the work – same function and form
Brings data to the masses, keeps them informed

So here I go don’t need no docs
Just launch IE or Firefox
Wow, look at that - this UI rocks!
This dope web client knocks off my socks!

I save time typing ‘cause of auto-complete
And collapsible panels keep my view neat
Flex-based flashboards?  Man, that’s sweet
It’s got fill layout – totally |_337!

New JavaScript engines make it fast
This technology’s built to last
Yo, I’m sold – my test is passed
My expectations it has surpassed

Hey thick client – C-YA!  Wouldn’t wanna be ya!
Your days are numbered, I guarantee ya
From Sunnyvale to South Korea
Fire up that browser – we’ll B-M-C ya!


-David J. Easter
Sr. Product Manager, Solution Strategy and Development
BMC Software, Inc.

The opinions, statements, and/or suggested courses of action  
expressed in this E-mail DEFINITELY do not reflect those of BMC  
Software, Inc.  My voluntary participation in this forum is not  
intended to convey a role as a spokesperson, liaison or public  
relations representative for BMC Software, Inc.



From: Action Request System discussion  list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG 
] On Behalf Of Sanford, Claire

Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 11:13 AM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Etiquette Question: Is Fat Client offensive?

**
Bravo Susan!  I couldn't have said it better myself!

Go FAT!

What a bunch of sizeists!

From: Action Request System discussion  list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG 
] On Behalf Of Susan Palmer

Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 12:33 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Etiquette Question: Is Fat Client offensive?

**
Since '95 I don't recall Remedy ever referring to it as the FAT  
client.  Whenever I heard the term I thought it was an old geek term  
especially once web became more prolific.  And as with most THIN  
clients in the past they did not have the full abilities of the FAT  
client which was many times overlooked since often THIN seemed to be  
preferred.  But many people realized that the FAT client was more  
fulfilling and rewarding.  Now THIN client has improved but will  
never be quite as good as the FAT client but many will continue to  
overlook that.  Go FAT !!


Susan  :)

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Shyman, Jonathan > wrote:

**
No, see, that's no good beacuse it infers the existence of a "smart"  
client.


You know, a client that will fill out most of the fields on a form  
for you, get you coffee, ask your boss for a raise and tell you it  
can't open the pod bay doors now.


:)

J.T. Shyman



-Original Message-
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of  
Reiser, John J

Sent: Fri 4/17/2009 9:38 AM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Etiquette Question: Is Fat Client offensive?

How about the dumb client? ARText Ver 1.5

---
John J. Reiser
Senior Software Development Analyst
Remedy Administrator/Developer
Lockheed Martin - MS2
The star that burns twice as bright burns half as long.
Pay close attention and be illuminated by its brilliance. -  
paraphrased by me

-Original Message-
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG 
] On Behalf Of Carey Matthew Black

Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 7:43 AM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Etiquette Question: Is Fat Client offensive?

Axton,

I think I was more like this:

RemedyWeb was the "thick web client" (applet based), (AKA "Fat web  
client")


ARWeb was the "thin web client" (DHTML/Javascript based)

WUT was the v4 Windows User Tool (Maybe also called the "FAT client".
Note it is fatter than the Fat web client by two more capital sized
letters.)

You also had to deal with the UUT. (Un*x User Tool). However, you
might also have called it the "OMUT" OSF/Motif User Tool too. But as I
only used it a few times I really do not want to try to remember it in
a negative way. Rather I will choose to focus on the positive
memories It's dead.

Then you also had to deal with the MUT. (Macintosh User Tool, was that
v3? or just v2?) Which I would call a "FAt client". (Not quite as fat
as the "FAT client", but fatter than t

Re: OT: Friday Humor: Etiquette Question: Is Fat Client offensive?

[Howard Richter]

It is going the way of the 8 track.

May the tape not break and the case not melt.



On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Easter, David  wrote:

> ** > Now THIN client has improved but will never be quite as good as the
> FAT client but many will continue to overlook that.
>
> I humbly disagree, and I thought the best way to voice that would be in a
> rap.  (Please imagine a posse emphasizing the parts in bold...)
>
>
> I sat down today at my *PC*
>
> Gonna log into my Rem-*E-DY*
>
> But yo’ yo’ dog, what do I see?
>
> My W-U-T is *R-I-P*
>
>
>
> Times have *changed*, tools rear*ranged*
>
> Someone’s got to be de*ranged*
>
> Phat clients are gone, now ain’t that strange
>
> OWA now’s my link to Ex*change*
>
>
>
> I ain’t here to dis’ the web *client*
>
> Not tryin’ to be rude or be de*fiant*
>
> I’m ready to bend, gonna be real *pliant*
>
> Don’t wanna go to jail not bein’ com*pliant*
>
>
>
> Web’s now the *norm*, got to *perform*
>
> Cloud Computing is the *per-fect storm*
>
> It does the work – same function and form
>
> Brings data to the masses, keeps them in*formed*
>
>
>
> So here I go don’t need no *docs*
>
> Just launch IE or *Firefox*
>
> Wow, look at that - this UI *rocks!*
>
> This dope web client *knocks* *off my socks!*
>
> * *
>
> I save time typing ‘cause of auto-com*plete*
>
> And collapsible panels keep *my view* *neat*
>
> Flex-based flashboards?  Man, that’s *sweet*
>
> It’s got fill layout – totally *|_337!  *
>
> * *
>
> New JavaScript engines make it *fast*
>
> This technology’s built to *last*
>
> Yo, I’m sold – my test is *passed*
>
> My expectations it has *surpassed*
>
>
>
> Hey thick client – *C-YA*!  Wouldn’t wanna *be ya*!
>
> Your days are numbered, I guaran*tee ya*
>
> From Sunnyvale to South *Korea*
>
> Fire up that browser – we’ll *B-M-C ya!*
>
>
> -David J. Easter
> Sr. Product Manager, Solution Strategy and Development
> BMC Software, Inc.
>
> The opinions, statements, and/or suggested courses of action expressed in
> this E-mail *DEFINITELY *do not reflect those of BMC Software, Inc.  My
> voluntary participation in this forum is not intended to convey a role as a
> spokesperson, liaison or public relations representative for BMC Software,
> Inc.
>
>
>  --
> *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:
> arsl...@arslist.org] *On Behalf Of *Sanford, Claire
> *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2009 11:13 AM
> *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: Etiquette Question: Is Fat Client offensive?
>
> ** Bravo Susan!  I couldn't have said it better myself!
>
> Go FAT!
>
> What a bunch of sizeists!
>
>  --
> *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:
> arsl...@arslist.org] *On Behalf Of *Susan Palmer
> *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2009 12:33 PM
> *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: Etiquette Question: Is Fat Client offensive?
>
> ** Since '95 I don't recall Remedy ever referring to it as the FAT
> client.  Whenever I heard the term I thought it was an old geek term
> especially once web became more prolific.  And as with most THIN clients in
> the past they did not have the full abilities of the FAT client which was
> many times overlooked since often THIN seemed to be preferred.  But many
> people realized that the FAT client was more fulfilling and rewarding.  Now
> THIN client has improved but will never be quite as good as the FAT client
> but many will continue to overlook that.  Go FAT !!
>
> Susan  :)
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Shyman, Jonathan wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>> No, see, that's no good beacuse it infers the existence of a "smart"
>> client.
>>
>> You know, a client that will fill out most of the fields on a form for
>> you, get you coffee, ask your boss for a raise and tell you it can't open
>> the pod bay doors now.
>>
>> :)
>>
>> J.T. Shyman
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Reiser,
>> John J
>> Sent: Fri 4/17/2009 9:38 AM
>> To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
>> Subject: Re: Etiquette Question: Is Fat Client offensive?
>>
>> How about the dumb client? ARText Ver 1.5
>>
>> ---
>> John J. Reiser
>> Senior Software Development Analyst
>> Remedy Administrator/Developer
>> Lockheed Martin - MS2
>> The star that burns twice as bright burns half as long.
>> Pay close attention and be illuminated by its brilliance. - paraphrased by
>> me
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [
>> mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG ] On Behalf Of Carey
>> Matthew Black
>> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 7:43 AM
>> To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
>> Subject: Re: Etiquette Question: Is Fat Client offensive?
>>
>> Axton,
>>
>> I think I was more like this:
>>
>> RemedyWeb was the "thick web client" (applet based), (AKA "Fat web
>> client")
>>
>> ARWeb was the "thin web client" (DHTML/Javascript based)
>>
>> WUT was the v4 Windows User Tool (Maybe also called the "FAT client".
>> Note it is fatter than

Re: OT: Friday Humor: Etiquette Question: Is Fat Client offensive?

[Warren Baltimore]

So, what did YOU drink for lunch today in the BMC Cafeteria

:-p

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Easter, David  wrote:

> ** > Now THIN client has improved but will never be quite as good as the
> FAT client but many will continue to overlook that.
>
> I humbly disagree, and I thought the best way to voice that would be in a
> rap.  (Please imagine a posse emphasizing the parts in bold...)
>
>
> I sat down today at my *PC*
>
> Gonna log into my Rem-*E-DY*
>
> But yo’ yo’ dog, what do I see?
>
> My W-U-T is *R-I-P*
>
>
>
> Times have *changed*, tools rear*ranged*
>
> Someone’s got to be de*ranged*
>
> Phat clients are gone, now ain’t that strange
>
> OWA now’s my link to Ex*change*
>
>
>
> I ain’t here to dis’ the web *client*
>
> Not tryin’ to be rude or be de*fiant*
>
> I’m ready to bend, gonna be real *pliant*
>
> Don’t wanna go to jail not bein’ com*pliant*
>
>
>
> Web’s now the *norm*, got to *perform*
>
> Cloud Computing is the *per-fect storm*
>
> It does the work – same function and form
>
> Brings data to the masses, keeps them in*formed*
>
>
>
> So here I go don’t need no *docs*
>
> Just launch IE or *Firefox*
>
> Wow, look at that - this UI *rocks!*
>
> This dope web client *knocks* *off my socks!*
>
> * *
>
> I save time typing ‘cause of auto-com*plete*
>
> And collapsible panels keep *my view* *neat*
>
> Flex-based flashboards?  Man, that’s *sweet*
>
> It’s got fill layout – totally *|_337!  *
>
> * *
>
> New JavaScript engines make it *fast*
>
> This technology’s built to *last*
>
> Yo, I’m sold – my test is *passed*
>
> My expectations it has *surpassed*
>
>
>
> Hey thick client – *C-YA*!  Wouldn’t wanna *be ya*!
>
> Your days are numbered, I guaran*tee ya*
>
> From Sunnyvale to South *Korea*
>
> Fire up that browser – we’ll *B-M-C ya!*
>
>
> -David J. Easter
> Sr. Product Manager, Solution Strategy and Development
> BMC Software, Inc.
>
> The opinions, statements, and/or suggested courses of action expressed in
> this E-mail *DEFINITELY *do not reflect those of BMC Software, Inc.  My
> voluntary participation in this forum is not intended to convey a role as a
> spokesperson, liaison or public relations representative for BMC Software,
> Inc.
>
>
>  --
> *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:
> arsl...@arslist.org] *On Behalf Of *Sanford, Claire
> *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2009 11:13 AM
> *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: Etiquette Question: Is Fat Client offensive?
>
> ** Bravo Susan!  I couldn't have said it better myself!
>
> Go FAT!
>
> What a bunch of sizeists!
>
>  --
> *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:
> arsl...@arslist.org] *On Behalf Of *Susan Palmer
> *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2009 12:33 PM
> *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: Etiquette Question: Is Fat Client offensive?
>
> ** Since '95 I don't recall Remedy ever referring to it as the FAT
> client.  Whenever I heard the term I thought it was an old geek term
> especially once web became more prolific.  And as with most THIN clients in
> the past they did not have the full abilities of the FAT client which was
> many times overlooked since often THIN seemed to be preferred.  But many
> people realized that the FAT client was more fulfilling and rewarding.  Now
> THIN client has improved but will never be quite as good as the FAT client
> but many will continue to overlook that.  Go FAT !!
>
> Susan  :)
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Shyman, Jonathan wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>> No, see, that's no good beacuse it infers the existence of a "smart"
>> client.
>>
>> You know, a client that will fill out most of the fields on a form for
>> you, get you coffee, ask your boss for a raise and tell you it can't open
>> the pod bay doors now.
>>
>> :)
>>
>> J.T. Shyman
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Reiser,
>> John J
>> Sent: Fri 4/17/2009 9:38 AM
>> To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
>> Subject: Re: Etiquette Question: Is Fat Client offensive?
>>
>> How about the dumb client? ARText Ver 1.5
>>
>> ---
>> John J. Reiser
>> Senior Software Development Analyst
>> Remedy Administrator/Developer
>> Lockheed Martin - MS2
>> The star that burns twice as bright burns half as long.
>> Pay close attention and be illuminated by its brilliance. - paraphrased by
>> me
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [
>> mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG ] On Behalf Of Carey
>> Matthew Black
>> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 7:43 AM
>> To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
>> Subject: Re: Etiquette Question: Is Fat Client offensive?
>>
>> Axton,
>>
>> I think I was more like this:
>>
>> RemedyWeb was the "thick web client" (applet based), (AKA "Fat web
>> client")
>>
>> ARWeb was the "thin web client" (DHTML/Javascript based)
>>
>> WUT was the v4 Windows User Tool (Maybe also called the "FAT client".
>> Note it is fatter than the Fat web cli

OT: Friday Humor: Etiquette Question: Is Fat Client offensive?

[Easter, David]

> Now THIN client has improved but will never be quite as good as the FAT 
> client but many will continue to overlook that.

I humbly disagree, and I thought the best way to voice that would be in a rap.  
(Please imagine a posse emphasizing the parts in bold...)

I sat down today at my PC
Gonna log into my Rem-E-DY
But yo' yo' dog, what do I see?
My W-U-T is R-I-P

Times have changed, tools rearranged
Someone's got to be deranged
Phat clients are gone, now ain't that strange
OWA now's my link to Exchange

I ain't here to dis' the web client
Not tryin' to be rude or be defiant
I'm ready to bend, gonna be real pliant
Don't wanna go to jail not bein' compliant

Web's now the norm, got to perform
Cloud Computing is the per-fect storm
It does the work - same function and form
Brings data to the masses, keeps them informed

So here I go don't need no docs
Just launch IE or Firefox
Wow, look at that - this UI rocks!
This dope web client knocks off my socks!

I save time typing 'cause of auto-complete
And collapsible panels keep my view neat
Flex-based flashboards?  Man, that's sweet
It's got fill layout - totally |_337!

New JavaScript engines make it fast
This technology's built to last
Yo, I'm sold - my test is passed
My expectations it has surpassed

Hey thick client - C-YA!  Wouldn't wanna be ya!
Your days are numbered, I guarantee ya
>From Sunnyvale to South Korea
Fire up that browser - we'll B-M-C ya!


-David J. Easter
Sr. Product Manager, Solution Strategy and Development
BMC Software, Inc.

The opinions, statements, and/or suggested courses of action expressed in this 
E-mail DEFINITELY do not reflect those of BMC Software, Inc.  My voluntary 
participation in this forum is not intended to convey a role as a spokesperson, 
liaison or public relations representative for BMC Software, Inc.



From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) 
[mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Sanford, Claire
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 11:13 AM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Etiquette Question: Is Fat Client offensive?

**
Bravo Susan!  I couldn't have said it better myself!

Go FAT!

What a bunch of sizeists!


From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) 
[mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Susan Palmer
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 12:33 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Etiquette Question: Is Fat Client offensive?

**
Since '95 I don't recall Remedy ever referring to it as the FAT client.  
Whenever I heard the term I thought it was an old geek term especially once web 
became more prolific.  And as with most THIN clients in the past they did not 
have the full abilities of the FAT client which was many times overlooked since 
often THIN seemed to be preferred.  But many people realized that the FAT 
client was more fulfilling and rewarding.  Now THIN client has improved but 
will never be quite as good as the FAT client but many will continue to 
overlook that.  Go FAT !!

Susan  :)

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Shyman, Jonathan 
mailto:jshy...@columnit.com>> wrote:
**

No, see, that's no good beacuse it infers the existence of a "smart" client.

You know, a client that will fill out most of the fields on a form for you, get 
you coffee, ask your boss for a raise and tell you it can't open the pod bay 
doors now.

:)

J.T. Shyman



-Original Message-
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Reiser, John J
Sent: Fri 4/17/2009 9:38 AM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Etiquette Question: Is Fat Client offensive?

How about the dumb client? ARText Ver 1.5

---
John J. Reiser
Senior Software Development Analyst
Remedy Administrator/Developer
Lockheed Martin - MS2
The star that burns twice as bright burns half as long.
Pay close attention and be illuminated by its brilliance. - paraphrased by me
-Original Message-
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) 
[mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Carey Matthew Black
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 7:43 AM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Etiquette Question: Is Fat Client offensive?

Axton,

I think I was more like this:

RemedyWeb was the "thick web client" (applet based), (AKA "Fat web client")

ARWeb was the "thin web client" (DHTML/Javascript based)

WUT was the v4 Windows User Tool (Maybe also called the "FAT client".
Note it is fatter than the Fat web client by two more capital sized
letters.)

You also had to deal with the UUT. (Un*x User Tool). However, you
might also have called it the "OMUT" OSF/Motif User Tool too. But as I
only used it a few times I really do not want to try to remember it in
a negative way. Rather I will choose to focus on the positive
memories It's dead.

Then you also had to deal with the MUT. (Macintosh User Tool, was that
v3? or just v2?) Which I would call a "FAt client". (Not quite as fat
as the "FAT client", but