[leptons]

Sure, if you set your own goalposts for the argument, you get to win any way you want.

>"I'd argue the opposite: more computers have an end-user accessible JavaScript engine (a browser) than an end-user accessible shell."

So let's use a specific goalpost and frame "a computer" as a desktop personal computer.

Today, there are no mainstream personal computers sold that don't come with both a user accessible shell and a web browser. Even Chromebooks have a shell. Just because a user doesn't have a clue how to use it doesn't mean it's not there.

Oh, did you mean to include phones in this pointless internet argument? Because that's an entirely different goalpost, and if you want to include phones then you should also include routers, IoT and embedded devices as "computers", says me.

[dumbo-octopus]

Perhaps I'd better understand what exactly your argument is if you could explain to me why devices which by your own admission "have no shell, do not run javascript, and have no browser" would have any relevance whatsoever in a discussion of whether more devices have a user-accessible shell or user-accessible browser.

To me it seems they are just about as irrelevant to the topic at hand as anything could possibly be, but you are getting very hung up on including them in the debate for reasons that elude me.

[leptons]

You have your definition of "computer", and I have mine. Any "computer" can be made to have a shell, or run javascript. That was the only point of my comment, and people seemed to agree. YMMV.

[dumbo-octopus]

There is no material difference in our definitions of computers. I am talking about what devices "have", in the indicative present tense. You contest my definition of a computer for some reason, then go on to make arguments about "can be made to have", as if that's somehow relevant? It boggles the mind.

Here's my argument in simpler terms that you may understand:

Across all objects in the known universe that have an end-user accessible either shell or javascript language interpreter, I claim there are more objects that have the javascript interpreter.

Do you now see how your claims about embedded IOT devices with no shells or js engines being "computers" that could maybe someday run various programs is completely off topic?

[leptons]

>There is no material difference in our definitions of computers.

Yes, there really is.

>Here's my argument in simpler terms that you may understand:

No need to be condescending about a disagreement in semantics.

>Across all objects in the known universe that have an end-user accessible either shell or javascript language interpreter, I claim there are more objects that have the javascript interpreter.

You'd be wrong. And you're being purposely vague. You haven't proven anything towards your assumption.

But lines need to be drawn. Is a phone a computer? If a phone is a computer, then so must an IoT device be a computer, or a managed network switch, and then your argument is falling apart.

I'm setting some goalposts since you don't seem to understand that goalposts are required to win a pointless internet argument.

I'm saying that if you include phones then you must also include other types of devices like routers and networking equipment and many other "objects in the known universe", and then there are many more devices that have a shell that do not have a web browser, and then you lose.

So set some definite goalposts if you want to continue this pointless conversation.

[dumbo-octopus]

> You haven't proven anything towards your assumption.

I gave the iOS example. 2 Billion devices with a browser but no shell. You have given no examples, other than devices which by your own admission have no shell or js engine, and are accordingly out of scope for this argument.

> If a phone is a computer, then so must an IoT device be a computer, or a managed network switch, and then your argument is falling apart.

I don't care what you include in the universe of "computers", all I care about is whether a given thing has an end-user accessible shell or js engine. If you think my argument is falling apart due to the existence of things which have absolutely no relation to it, I don't know what to tell you.

I'm trying, but I really don't think I can be any more clear with you. Let's revisit my initial request of you:

> Can you give an example of a device that has an end-user accessible shell, but not an end-user accessible browser?

To date all you've mentioned are devices which have no shell or js engine. I don't understand how you think you're being relevant.

And the goal posts have been immobile and obvious to everyone but you from the very beginning: count the devices where the user can access a browser, count the devices where the user can access a shell. Which number is bigger?

[leptons]

iphones can't be used to prove anything except that you're a fanboy.

I've given plenty of examples. But you are unwilling to define

>I don't care what you include in the universe of "computers", all I care about is winning pointless internet arguments.

FTFY

You ran to the 'iPhone' example as if the reality distortion field would block me, but it doesn't prove anything. There are billions of servers, network switches, supercomputer installations that are all definitely computers with a shell that don't have a web browser in any way shape or form. Every computer in the entire "cloud" has a shell but not necessarily a web browser, and usually don't have one. Every container running on those servers is essentially a server with a shell. It's a deep rabbit hole if you want to go down. Practically every house with an iphone has at least 1 network router if not more, most have a shell but no browser. The list goes on and on and on. But sure, die on that iPhone hill like so many others before you.