this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2026
877 points (99.7% liked)
Greentext
7829 readers
943 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Remote computing makes sense from an environmental perspective. There would be a drastic reduction in e-waste if people were using zero clients instead of desktops.
Maybe in theory, but in practice, Chromebooks.
I don't know how well that holds. I'm not under the impression that much cloud hardware can be or is reused. Also thin clients tend to have short lifecycles
I said zero client, not thin client. A zero client is basically just a device that connects to remote computing, not unlike a dedicated streaming device.
That's a thin client. You can rebrand it however many times you want. I still see em in the ewaste. At the end of the day you can't remove the computing requirements of running a network stack, a crypto stack, a compression stack, HID, and frame and audio buffering.
No, it's a zero client. A thin client has a desktop environment with a limited number of apps. Zero clients are less advanced than a raspberry pi.
That's a much different environmental impact than a desktop.
Source: I used to run VDI for a global company for a living, deploying both thin and zero clients.
OnLive's zero-client console wishes to have a word with you.
Oh wait, it can't. It's dead.
Even zero clients become outdated, with the additional detriment of being 100% dependent on the service they are connected to.