Linux browser trends examined
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
supported by published web stats. Someone asked for supporting
evidence, and I meant follow up with links but became buried
with work. I've finally had some spare time to dig into it,
but rather than post in that now probably cold thread, I'll
start a new one.
I've collected up stats from three public sources, plugged them
into an OpenOffice spreadsheet and graphed the trends. They
very clearly show what I've been seeing for a while: even web
stats that show relatively low Linux share show consistent
growth over time. Also, as one would expect, sources with
very large samples collected from a broad demographic mix of
sites show a rather smooth growth line compared to a smaller
sample from one site. The lowest share I've found is the
0.67 percent value from hitslink. It is not hard to find
stats in the 1 to 2 percent range. This is a considerable
improvement from a few years ago when 0.2 was the number being
thrown around. Just for fun, I've put the graphs on a web
page, including links to original source data:
http://www.glaci.com/linuxstats.html
Enjoy,
Thad
--
Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
all the ingredients on the label.
Snit
in post 5evbb5-...@tux.glaci.com on 3/20/08 10:59 PM:
Thanks... puts into some question the idea that Linux desktop usage is still
under 1%... but seems it is likely that it is still under 2%. Thanks for
the data.
--
Do you ever wake up in a cold sweat wondering what the world would be
like if the Lamarckian view of evolutionary had ended up being accepted
over Darwin's?
DFS
Thanks for the ammo, Mercenary: after 10+ years of trying to give itself
away, less than 1 in 100 users chooses Linux.
Also, you said "...what I find interest is the obvious long term trend."
Since when is 11 months long-term? If you had used the full date range
available for Linux, your graph would rise faster (better revise it and get
that little bit of oomph).
Only the hitslink numbers are meaningful. w3schools is just one site, with
a technical focus.
Gregory Shearman
An exclusive club.
When people have a choice to buy preloaded linux then things will improve.
But choice is pretty hard to come by.
> Also, you said "...what I find interest is the obvious long term trend."
> Since when is 11 months long-term? If you had used the full date range
> available for Linux, your graph would rise faster (better revise it and
> get that little bit of oomph).
>
> Only the hitslink numbers are meaningful. w3schools is just one site,
> with a technical focus.
hitslink isn't even meaningful.
No one really knows how many people use linux.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
>
> Thanks for the ammo, Mercenary: after 10+ years of trying to give itself
> away, less than 1 in 100 users chooses Linux.
Actually, looks to me that it could be as much as 2 or 3 per 100 if
you look at a broad enough spectrum of stats.
> Also, you said "...what I find interest is the obvious long term trend."
> Since when is 11 months long-term? If you had used the full date range
> available for Linux, your graph would rise faster (better revise it and get
> that little bit of oomph).
I used the info I had readily available, though my memory of older
stats are that they show similar trends. I think noticeable desktop
growth only goes back a few years, not much before Ubuntu was
released. Prior to that it was so low any growth would be lost in
the statistical noise. Of course prior to that the big growth was
in the server market. I always said I thought the desktop growth
curve would look like the server curve, just lagging it by some
number of years.
> Only the hitslink numbers are meaningful. w3schools is just one site, with
> a technical focus.
You've got some sort of problem with the w3counter.com numbers other
than they are larger than you like? It seems they use a rather large
and diverse sample and are thus rather credible. More than 20
million visits aggregated from almost 8000 sites yielding 2 percent
linux share in their most recent sample. OK, not up to even Mac levels
but certainly better than the 'less than 1 percent' thrown around
by some around here. More importantly, the growth rate is consistent
with the what hitslink shows.
Cheers,
DFS
> DFS wrote:
>> Thanks for the ammo, Mercenary: after 10+ years of trying to give
>> itself away, less than 1 in 100 users chooses Linux.
>
> An exclusive club.
...of woman haters http://lonien.de/wjl/images/jpg/p200602260034.jpg
> When people have a choice to buy preloaded linux then things will
> improve. But choice is pretty hard to come by.
Wal-mart just chose to remove one such choice because when offered a choice
people didn't choose that choice.
You cola wacks should pool your funds and start a Linux system vendor, and
watch your tiny fortunes grow to no fortunes.
>> Also, you said "...what I find interest is the obvious long term
>> trend." Since when is 11 months long-term? If you had used the full
>> date range available for Linux, your graph would rise faster (better
>> revise it and get that little bit of oomph).
>>
>> Only the hitslink numbers are meaningful. w3schools is just one
>> site, with a technical focus.
>
> hitslink isn't even meaningful.
It's very meaningful.
> No one really knows how many people use linux.
We know this for sure: not many.
amicus_curious
"Gregory Shearman" <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:2695936.e...@netscape.net...
>
> No one really knows how many people use linux.
>
terms of sparking any mass migration to Linux on the desktop. For marketing
purposes, you have two categories, i.e. Windows and "others".
Rick
Actually it is again becoming Windows, OS X and others.
--
Rick
Rick
> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>> DFS wrote:
>
>>> Thanks for the ammo, Mercenary: after 10+ years of trying to give
>>> itself away, less than 1 in 100 users chooses Linux.
>>
>> An exclusive club.
>
> ...of woman haters http://lonien.de/wjl/images/jpg/p200602260034.jpg
>
>
>
>> When people have a choice to buy preloaded linux then things will
>> improve. But choice is pretty hard to come by.
>
> Wal-mart just chose to remove one such choice because when offered a
> choice people didn't choose that choice.
No, they took the macines off the shelves because of low margins. They
are still on the web.
>
> You cola wacks should pool your funds and start a Linux system vendor,
> and watch your tiny fortunes grow to no fortunes.
You show beg money from relatives to buy some honesty.
>
>
>
>>> Also, you said "...what I find interest is the obvious long term
>>> trend." Since when is 11 months long-term? If you had used the full
>>> date range available for Linux, your graph would rise faster (better
>>> revise it and get that little bit of oomph).
>>>
>>> Only the hitslink numbers are meaningful. w3schools is just one site,
>>> with a technical focus.
>>
>> hitslink isn't even meaningful.
>
> It's very meaningful.
>
>
>
>> No one really knows how many people use linux.
>
> We know this for sure: not many.
That depends on how you define not many.
--
Rick
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
>
> Nor does it really matter. 0%, 1%, 2%, even 3% are effectively zero in
> terms of sparking any mass migration to Linux on the desktop. For marketing
> purposes, you have two categories, i.e. Windows and "others".
You can keep saying that to yourself if it makes you feel better,
but as Linux marches into solid single digit territory with a clear
long term growth trend, it makes software vendors that much more
likely to include Linux in their cross platform plans. Increased
application choice makes the platform more viable to users which
in turn reinforces the growth trend. A larger install base also
adds to the viral growth through peer advocacy and increased
visibility.
Of course there will not be a mass migration... as I've said many
times, it takes years to churn an entrenched install base. Just
look at how long Netware stuck around long after the common wisdom
said it was 'dead'. But the desktop Linux trend is clear, and
just like server Linux, is defying the predictions of the critics.
Linux is not 'dying out' or 'going nowhere'. It is clearly
improving and growing.
I find it interesting that success for MS has now essentially
been redefined from 'crushing Linux' to 'holding off the mass
migration'. :)
Moshe Goldfarb
>
> Thanks for the ammo, Mercenary: after 10+ years of trying to give itself
> away, less than 1 in 100 users chooses Linux.
>
> Also, you said "...what I find interest is the obvious long term trend."
> Since when is 11 months long-term? If you had used the full date range
> available for Linux, your graph would rise faster (better revise it and get
> that little bit of oomph).
>
> Only the hitslink numbers are meaningful. w3schools is just one site, with
> a technical focus.
I think the BBC study which pegged Linux at about 0.8 percent is probably
in the ballpark because the BBC is not a techie site where Linux would show
inflated numbers nor is it a really a site targeted at specific types of
people.
It's worldwide although I suspect the highest market share is from GB and
the European community.
This should actually help Linux as Linux seems to be more popular over
there than in USA.
At any rate, no matter how you slice it, the market share for desktop Linux
is horrendous.
It's free and virtually nobody is using it.
The Linux community needs to sit down and suck it up and figure out what is
wrong with Linux and fix it.
Releasing one faulty distribution after another is not the way to fix it.
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Linonut
> I've collected up stats from three public sources, plugged them
> into an OpenOffice spreadsheet and graphed the trends. They
> very clearly show what I've been seeing for a while: even web
> stats that show relatively low Linux share show consistent
> growth over time. Also, as one would expect, sources with
> very large samples collected from a broad demographic mix of
> sites show a rather smooth growth line compared to a smaller
> sample from one site. The lowest share I've found is the
> 0.67 percent value from hitslink. It is not hard to find
> stats in the 1 to 2 percent range. This is a considerable
> improvement from a few years ago when 0.2 was the number being
> thrown around. Just for fun, I've put the graphs on a web
> page, including links to original source data:
>
> http://www.glaci.com/linuxstats.html
Cool stats, thanx!
--
At Microsoft there are lots of brilliant ideas but the image is that they
all come from the top - I'm afraid that's not quite right.
-- Bill Gates
josh fickler
"Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:13u7ef3...@news.supernews.com...
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:48:57 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>>> Thanks for the ammo, Mercenary: after 10+ years of trying to give
>>>> itself away, less than 1 in 100 users chooses Linux.
>>>
>>> An exclusive club.
>>
>> ...of woman haters http://lonien.de/wjl/images/jpg/p200602260034.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>>> When people have a choice to buy preloaded linux then things will
>>> improve. But choice is pretty hard to come by.
>>
>> Wal-mart just chose to remove one such choice because when offered a
>> choice people didn't choose that choice.
>
> No, they took the macines off the shelves because of low margins. They
> are still on the web.
Which is precisely the point. The in-store linux computers was inventory
that Walmart had to buy, stock and sell. Except that nobody was interested
in buying it. Everything Walmart sells has low margins. They make it up in
quantity so this computer is no different. They dropped it because it sat
there and collected dust.
As far as the computers Walmart sells on their website. For starters, how
many people do you know that bought their computer from Walmart.com? I've
never heard of anyone doing this. So it's not going to be any huge boom to
linux adoption.
Selling the computer online is hardly a testiment for linux. Walmart simply
"advertises" the computer on the website. If someone were to actually buy
one of these Walmart would take the order, process it, do the billing but
the computer would ship directly from Everex. Walmart neither stocks the
computer or does anything more than take the order for the computer. It's
hardly different from someone selling a "linux computer" on eBay. This in no
way means that Walmart believes in linux systems or that they are actually
selling in any significant numbers. Walmart simply lists them on the website
pretty much the same way that eBay lists items. The actual shipping and
delivery of the item is done by someone else.
(Walmart doesn't have a huge pile of these linux machines sitting somewhere
in a warehouse.)
>>
>> You cola wacks should pool your funds and start a Linux system vendor,
>> and watch your tiny fortunes grow to no fortunes.
>
> You show beg money from relatives to buy some honesty.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Also, you said "...what I find interest is the obvious long term
>>>> trend." Since when is 11 months long-term? If you had used the full
>>>> date range available for Linux, your graph would rise faster (better
>>>> revise it and get that little bit of oomph).
>>>>
>>>> Only the hitslink numbers are meaningful. w3schools is just one site,
>>>> with a technical focus.
>>>
>>> hitslink isn't even meaningful.
>>
>> It's very meaningful.
>>
>>
>>
>>> No one really knows how many people use linux.
>>
>> We know this for sure: not many.
>
> That depends on how you define not many.
>
> --
> Rick
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Hadron
And its numbers tie in more with the BBC which says 0.8%.
A roughly 0.2% boost during Ubuntu hysteria. One user in every 500.
This is not good whichever way you want to cut and dice it.
--
"Do a screen-shot of a text. Now disable anti-aliasing. Do again screen-shot of same text. Compare both. They are exactly the same."
Peter Koehlmann, COLA, explaining Anti Aliasing ....
http://tinyurl.com/33672q
Hadron
> amicus_curious <AC...@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>> Nor does it really matter. 0%, 1%, 2%, even 3% are effectively zero in
>> terms of sparking any mass migration to Linux on the desktop. For marketing
>> purposes, you have two categories, i.e. Windows and "others".
>
> You can keep saying that to yourself if it makes you feel better,
> but as Linux marches into solid single digit territory with a clear
> long term growth trend, it makes software vendors that much more
The thing that scares me is that you take this 0.2% growth during Linux
prime time as a positive thing. It is disastrous.
Linonut
> DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the ammo, Mercenary:
Just wanted to point out this term used by DFS, the cheap-shot artist
who nonetheless misses the target.
>> after 10+ years of trying to give itself
>> away, less than 1 in 100 users chooses Linux.
>
> Actually, looks to me that it could be as much as 2 or 3 per 100 if
> you look at a broad enough spectrum of stats.
And leave the Microsoft-besotted U.S. out of the equation <grin>.
Here's another thing. Those stats only get at people using the web for
browsing. Also, what if most of the Linux users also used Windows, thus
diluting the Linux stats? Are we going to start counting "half-Linux"
users?
What about people who perforce use Windows during the day, but have
Linux systems at home, but are then don't do much browsing, but instead
do other stuff with the box.
If you just count browser usage, you leave a lot out of the equation.
How about NNTP usage? FTP? Robots? Peer-to-peer? On-line gaming?
And it all takes place in the presence of a still-powerful consumer
desktop monopoly that is, as per its former CEO, always "running scared"
and using marketing and business tactics that match its emotional state.
A company that astroturfs the web with advertising and propaganda.
Whose proponents astroturf blogs, article commentary, and other forums.
>> Only the hitslink numbers are meaningful. w3schools is just one site, with
>> a technical focus.
>
> You've got some sort of problem with the w3counter.com numbers other
> than they are larger than you like? It seems they use a rather large
> and diverse sample and are thus rather credible. More than 20
> million visits aggregated from almost 8000 sites yielding 2 percent
> linux share in their most recent sample. OK, not up to even Mac levels
> but certainly better than the 'less than 1 percent' thrown around
> by some around here. More importantly, the growth rate is consistent
> with the what hitslink shows.
The growth today of Apple systems and Linux systems is something to be
welcomed with joy.
Not with the snivelling arrogance of a "mercenary" who makes his living
off of Microsoft software and then comes here to defend his status quo
using ridicule and cheap-shots.
--
You see, antiquated ideas of kindness and generosity are simply bugs that
must be programmed out of our world. And these cold, unfeeling machines will
show us the way.
-- Bill Gates
josh fickler
<tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com> wrote in message
news:q65cb5-...@tux.glaci.com...
> DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the ammo, Mercenary: after 10+ years of trying to give itself
>> away, less than 1 in 100 users chooses Linux.
>
> Actually, looks to me that it could be as much as 2 or 3 per 100 if
> you look at a broad enough spectrum of stats.
>
>> Also, you said "...what I find interest is the obvious long term trend."
>> Since when is 11 months long-term? If you had used the full date range
>> available for Linux, your graph would rise faster (better revise it and
>> get
>> that little bit of oomph).
>
> I used the info I had readily available, though my memory of older
> stats are that they show similar trends. I think noticeable desktop
> growth only goes back a few years, not much before Ubuntu was
> released. Prior to that it was so low any growth would be lost in
> the statistical noise. Of course prior to that the big growth was
> in the server market. I always said I thought the desktop growth
> curve would look like the server curve, just lagging it by some
> number of years.
>
>> Only the hitslink numbers are meaningful. w3schools is just one site,
>> with
>> a technical focus.
>
> You've got some sort of problem with the w3counter.com numbers other
> than they are larger than you like? It seems they use a rather large
> and diverse sample and are thus rather credible.
The problem is that w3counter will primarily measure "technical people" and
technical people are more likely to be using linux than your average user.
It's not all that different from going to a website that's MS-Office centric
and using those web stats to draw a conclusion. The typical user attracted
to a MS-Office site is more likely to be using Windows.
People visiting a "programming" or development centric website are more
likely to be using linux than the rest of the general population.
To get neutral usage stats you need a site that would appeal equally to a
wide cross-section of the population. Something like Google or eBay or CNN.
> More than 20
> million visits aggregated from almost 8000 sites yielding 2 percent
> linux share in their most recent sample. OK, not up to even Mac levels
> but certainly better than the 'less than 1 percent' thrown around
> by some around here. More importantly, the growth rate is consistent
> with the what hitslink shows.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thad
> --
> Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
> all the ingredients on the label.
--
amicus_curious
<tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com> wrote in message
news:i6scb5-...@tux.glaci.com...
Well, you keep your chin up! I particularly liked the "marches into solid
single digit territory" and "viral growth through peer advocacy". I can
hear "Sweet Cream Ladies" blaring in the background!
chrisv
>>> Wal-mart just chose to remove one such choice because when offered a
>>> choice people didn't choose that choice.
>>
>> No, they took the macines off the shelves because of low margins. They
>> are still on the web.
>
>Which is precisely the point. The in-store linux computers was inventory
>that Walmart had to buy, stock and sell. Except that nobody was interested
>in buying it. Everything Walmart sells has low margins. They make it up in
>quantity so this computer is no different. They dropped it because it sat
>there and collected dust.
Selling Linux boxes at WalMart, with no one to explain the difference
to customers, was not a great idea.
This has already been explained, Teranews Fsckwit.
*plonk*
josh fickler
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:lll7u3pf7mbc34kb9...@4ax.com...
Why would anyone need to explain the difference. According to you morons as
soon as people saw how great, fast, and good looking linux is with all that
eye-candy that people would be drooling to buy linux machines. So here were
the computers, sitting right there on the shelf next to the Windows machines
that also weren't being explained. The difference is that people probably
played around for a few minutes with the linux machines then said "Phewwww"
and then turned around and bought a Windows machine.
Nobody was there to explain anything about either system. Walmart customers
took the "Pepsi challenge" and when they were done, they would rather pay
more for a Windows machine.
> This has already been explained, Teranews Fsckwit.
A bunch of incoherent excuses is hardly an explanation.
Snit
on 3/21/08 6:36 AM:
>>> When people have a choice to buy preloaded linux then things will
>>> improve. But choice is pretty hard to come by.
>>
>> Wal-mart just chose to remove one such choice because when offered a
>> choice people didn't choose that choice.
>
> No, they took the macines off the shelves because of low margins.
Can you show this?
...
>>> No one really knows how many people use linux.
>>
>> We know this for sure: not many.
>
> That depends on how you define not many.
LOL!
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
Snit
2695936.e...@netscape.net on 3/21/08 12:31 AM:
Exclusive? How?
> When people have a choice to buy preloaded linux then things will improve.
> But choice is pretty hard to come by.
They do... from Dell, HP, Walmart (though only online now!), etc.
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
--Albert Einstein
Matt
> http://www.glaci.com/linuxstats.html
>
> Enjoy,
>
> Thad
Thanks for the web page with the nice graphs.
I have tabulated some of the data from w3counter starting from the links
found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_desktop_operating_systems
On that page, several Linux measurements during a single month are
averaged to get a number for that month. I think that's how you are
making your graphs. However I made my table from the raw data and
counted the time as the number of days since the beginning of 2007, with
01/01/07 being day 1. By raw data I mean the pages like
http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php?date=2007-05-10
http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php?date=2007-05-20
http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php?date=2007-05-30
etc.
I tabulated data for Linux, Mac, IE6, IE7, and IE6+IE7.
Date Day Number Linux Mac IE6 IE7 IE6+IE7 Midpoint
05/10/07 130 1.25 3.91 48.88 17.62 66.50
05/20/07 140 1.21 3.94 49.54 16.82 66.36 135
05/30/07 150 1.26 3.77 50.22 16.47 66.69 145
06/10/07 161 1.27 3.84 49.52 16.96 66.48 155.5
06/20/07 171 1.32 3.82 49.21 17.09 66.30 166
06/30/07 181 1.30 3.80 49.12 17.08 66.20 176
07/10/07 191 1.29 3.74 48.84 17.64 66.48 186
07/30/07 211 1.32 3.70 48.18 18.23 66.41 201
08/10/07 222 1.33 3.73 47.59 18.71 66.30 216.5
08/20/07 232 1.34 3.73 47.26 18.97 66.23 227
08/30/07 242 1.34 3.77 47.01 19.19 66.20 237
09/10/07 253 1.37 3.74 46.55 19.59 66.14 247.5
09/20/07 263 1.37 3.78 46.68 19.54 66.22 258
10/01/07 274 1.38 3.77 46.10 20.18 66.28 268.5
10/10/07 283 1.38 3.82 46.01 20.29 66.30 278.5
10/20/07 293 1.70 4.49 43.76 18.76 62.52 288
10/30/07 303 1.75 4.54 43.43 18.98 62.41 298
11/10/07 314 1.74 4.49 43.33 19.22 62.55 308.5
12/01/07 335 1.77 4.59 42.79 19.57 62.36 324.5
01/31/08 396 1.84 4.82 40.12 21.67 61.79 365.5
02/29/08 425 2.01 4.95 39.00 22.67 61.67 410.5
I'd be happy if you'd like to use these numbers in your graphs. I never
make mistakes, but you and other COLA readers might want to double-check
them to be sure they match the numbers on the website.
The IE6+IE7 and the Midpoint (of the time period) columns are computed
in my spread sheet, so you could discard those columns and write your
own expressions to get those numbers if you want.
I see you have included only Linux graphs ... I think the Mac and IE
graphs add to the picture ... anyway by using the day-numbered raw data
for Linux usage, we get a somewhat more precise picture for Linux ...
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
>
> The problem is that w3counter will primarily measure "technical people" and
> technical people are more likely to be using linux than your average user.
>
> It's not all that different from going to a website that's MS-Office centric
> and using those web stats to draw a conclusion. The typical user attracted
> to a MS-Office site is more likely to be using Windows.
How do you figure that? W3counter collects their stats from nearly
8000 different websites, not just their own. Their is nothing to
indicate that their stats service is used only by 'technical people'.
They likely have a cross section of many types of customer sites.
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
> * tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for the ammo, Mercenary:
>
> Just wanted to point out this term used by DFS, the cheap-shot artist
> who nonetheless misses the target.
Actually, I wasn't really bothered by it. Truth is, I am an
independent consultant, which I've heard referred to as a 'hired
gun' more than once. Heck, I've jokingly referred to myself as a
technology whore. Generally, I work on whatever the client needs
me to.
The thing is, I've no shortage of Linux work in recent years, so
I have the luxury of working on the tech I find most interesting.
It didn't used to be that way.
>> Actually, looks to me that it could be as much as 2 or 3 per 100 if
>> you look at a broad enough spectrum of stats.
>
> And leave the Microsoft-besotted U.S. out of the equation <grin>.
>
> Here's another thing. Those stats only get at people using the web for
> browsing. Also, what if most of the Linux users also used Windows, thus
> diluting the Linux stats? Are we going to start counting "half-Linux"
> users?
>
> What about people who perforce use Windows during the day, but have
> Linux systems at home, but are then don't do much browsing, but instead
> do other stuff with the box.
>
> If you just count browser usage, you leave a lot out of the equation.
> How about NNTP usage? FTP? Robots? Peer-to-peer? On-line gaming?
True, what web stats can tell you is really the relative presence
of each platform among the web connected populace, not all PC
users. Still, that is a valuable thing to know and is useful
when examining larger trends.
> And it all takes place in the presence of a still-powerful consumer
> desktop monopoly that is, as per its former CEO, always "running scared"
> and using marketing and business tactics that match its emotional state.
> A company that astroturfs the web with advertising and propaganda.
> Whose proponents astroturf blogs, article commentary, and other forums.
> The growth today of Apple systems and Linux systems is something to be
> welcomed with joy.
Yes, I welcome additional diversity and competition in the
marketplace. There is no doubt Linux and Apple have forced MS
to up there game and indirectly benefited even Windows users.
I look at this way: If we were watching a tug of war between
a mouse and an elephant, and the mouse was actually tugging things
every so slowly his direction, I would be pretty damn impressed
with that mouse no matter how gradual the progress. ;)
josh fickler
<tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com> wrote in message
news:6a5db5-...@tux.glaci.com...
> josh fickler <j...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> The problem is that w3counter will primarily measure "technical people"
>> and
>> technical people are more likely to be using linux than your average
>> user.
>>
>> It's not all that different from going to a website that's MS-Office
>> centric
>> and using those web stats to draw a conclusion. The typical user
>> attracted
>> to a MS-Office site is more likely to be using Windows.
>
> How do you figure that? W3counter collects their stats from nearly
> 8000 different websites, not just their own. Their is nothing to
> indicate that their stats service is used only by 'technical people'.
> They likely have a cross section of many types of customer sites.
I was thinking w3schools. Thanks for clearing that up.
Is this the page you're using to get your 2% linux number from?
http://www.w3counter.com/stats/platforms/2/20/0
If so then there's a problem with your theory of 8,000 different websites.
The most popular OS (Win-XP) shows up as getting just 10,997 visits. That's
less than 1.5 visits per each of those "8,000" websites they collect data
from. Linux on that list has a total of 286 visits. You'd think that with
8,000 websites worth of collective data the numbers would be higher than
this. A LOT higher.
> Thad
> --
> Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
> all the ingredients on the label.
--
Matt
> amicus_curious <AC...@sti.net> wrote:
> A larger install base also
> adds to the viral growth through peer advocacy and increased
> visibility.
That is an exponential-growth phenomenon: the growth rate is
proportional to the existing number.
Rick
> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:13u7ef3...@news.supernews.com...
>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:48:57 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>>> DFS wrote:
>>>>> Thanks for the ammo, Mercenary: after 10+ years of trying to give
>>>>> itself away, less than 1 in 100 users chooses Linux.
>>>> An exclusive club.
>>> ...of woman haters http://lonien.de/wjl/images/jpg/p200602260034.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> When people have a choice to buy preloaded linux then things will
>>>> improve. But choice is pretty hard to come by.
>>> Wal-mart just chose to remove one such choice because when offered a
>>> choice people didn't choose that choice.
>> No, they took the macines off the shelves because of low margins. They
>> are still on the web.
>
>
> Which is precisely the point. The in-store linux computers was inventory
> that Walmart had to buy, stock and sell. Except that nobody was interested
> in buying it. Everything Walmart sells has low margins. They make it up in
> quantity so this computer is no different. They dropped it because it sat
> there and collected dust.
except for the sold out part.
>
> As far as the computers Walmart sells on their website. For starters, how
> many people do you know that bought their computer from Walmart.com? I've
> never heard of anyone doing this. So it's not going to be any huge boom to
> linux adoption.
It may, or may not, but WalMart still has them for sale.
>
>
> Selling the computer online is hardly a testiment for linux. Walmart simply
> "advertises" the computer on the website. If someone were to actually buy
> one of these Walmart would take the order, process it, do the billing but
> the computer would ship directly from Everex. Walmart neither stocks the
> computer or does anything more than take the order for the computer. It's
> hardly different from someone selling a "linux computer" on eBay. This in no
> way means that Walmart believes in linux systems or that they are actually
> selling in any significant numbers. Walmart simply lists them on the website
> pretty much the same way that eBay lists items. The actual shipping and
> delivery of the item is done by someone else.
>
> (Walmart doesn't have a huge pile of these linux machines sitting somewhere
> in a warehouse.)
No shit, Sherlock. WalMart does sell them, however, and there are a LOT
of things WalMart doesn't sell.
--
Rick
Rick
> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> stated in post 13u7ef3...@news.supernews.com
> on 3/21/08 6:36 AM:
>
>>>> When people have a choice to buy preloaded linux then things will
>>>> improve. But choice is pretty hard to come by.
>>> Wal-mart just chose to remove one such choice because when offered a
>>> choice people didn't choose that choice.
>> No, they took the macines off the shelves because of low margins.
>
> Can you show this?
Can you read the articles that addressed this?
"According to Chapter11Net, Liu is relaxed about the news pointing out
sales of the Everex are fine online and making money from a $199 PC is
difficult at the best of time.
Margins on the sale of anything that cheap are too small when a $399 PC
will make you three times more. Liu said that in-store sales were only
ten per cent of the total Everex machines sold anyway."
Can you manage to find the actuall articles all by your wittle sef?
>
> ...
>>>> No one really knows how many people use linux.
>>> We know this for sure: not many.
>> That depends on how you define not many.
>
> LOL!
>
Look, a braying ass.
--
Rick
Snit
on 3/21/08 11:22 AM:
> Snit wrote:
>> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> stated in post 13u7ef3...@news.supernews.com
>> on 3/21/08 6:36 AM:
>>
>>>>> When people have a choice to buy preloaded linux then things will
>>>>> improve. But choice is pretty hard to come by.
>>>> Wal-mart just chose to remove one such choice because when offered a
>>>> choice people didn't choose that choice.
>>> No, they took the macines off the shelves because of low margins.
>>
>> Can you show this?
>
> Can you read the articles that addressed this?
>
> "According to Chapter11Net, Liu is relaxed about the news pointing out
> sales of the Everex are fine online and making money from a $199 PC is
> difficult at the best of time.
>
> Margins on the sale of anything that cheap are too small when a $399 PC
> will make you three times more. Liu said that in-store sales were only
> ten per cent of the total Everex machines sold anyway."
>
> Can you manage to find the actuall articles all by your wittle sef?
Gee, Rick, I asked you to support a claim you made and you got all bent out
of shape.
Poor Rick... poor, poor Rick.
>
>>
>> ...
>>>>> No one really knows how many people use linux.
>>>> We know this for sure: not many.
>>> That depends on how you define not many.
>>
>> LOL!
>>
> Look, a braying ass.
You lash out a lot when you are in over your head. Just thought you should
know. :)
--
It usually takes me more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu
speech. -- Mark Twain
Rick
> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> stated in post 13u7v6p...@news.supernews.com
> on 3/21/08 11:22 AM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> stated in post 13u7ef3...@news.supernews.com
>>> on 3/21/08 6:36 AM:
>>>
>>>>>> When people have a choice to buy preloaded linux then things will
>>>>>> improve. But choice is pretty hard to come by.
>>>>> Wal-mart just chose to remove one such choice because when offered a
>>>>> choice people didn't choose that choice.
>>>> No, they took the macines off the shelves because of low margins.
>>> Can you show this?
>> Can you read the articles that addressed this?
>>
>> "According to Chapter11Net, Liu is relaxed about the news pointing out
>> sales of the Everex are fine online and making money from a $199 PC is
>> difficult at the best of time.
>>
>> Margins on the sale of anything that cheap are too small when a $399 PC
>> will make you three times more. Liu said that in-store sales were only
>> ten per cent of the total Everex machines sold anyway."
>>
>> Can you manage to find the actuall articles all by your wittle sef?
>
> Gee, Rick, I asked you to support a claim you made and you got all bent out
> of shape.
More lies from Snit.
>
> Poor Rick... poor, poor Rick.
I am not poor. I'm middle class. Maybe that's why you are so jealous.
>
>
>>> ...
>>>>>> No one really knows how many people use linux.
>>>>> We know this for sure: not many.
>>>> That depends on how you define not many.
>>> LOL!
>>>
>> Look, a braying ass.
>
> You lash out a lot when you are in over your head. Just thought you should
> know. :)
>
>
Liar.
--
Rick
Snit
on 3/21/08 12:53 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> stated in post 13u7v6p...@news.supernews.com
>> on 3/21/08 11:22 AM:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> stated in post 13u7ef3...@news.supernews.com
>>>> on 3/21/08 6:36 AM:
>>>>
>>>>>>> When people have a choice to buy preloaded linux then things will
>>>>>>> improve. But choice is pretty hard to come by.
>>>>>> Wal-mart just chose to remove one such choice because when offered a
>>>>>> choice people didn't choose that choice.
>>>>> No, they took the macines off the shelves because of low margins.
>>>> Can you show this?
>>> Can you read the articles that addressed this?
>>>
>>> "According to Chapter11Net, Liu is relaxed about the news pointing out
>>> sales of the Everex are fine online and making money from a $199 PC is
>>> difficult at the best of time.
>>>
>>> Margins on the sale of anything that cheap are too small when a $399 PC
>>> will make you three times more. Liu said that in-store sales were only
>>> ten per cent of the total Everex machines sold anyway."
>>>
>>> Can you manage to find the actuall articles all by your wittle sef?
>>
>> Gee, Rick, I asked you to support a claim you made and you got all bent out
>> of shape.
>
> More lies from Snit.
If you are going to call my comments a "lie", Rick, you should have at least
snipped the proof I was correct. :)
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
Tim Smith
I find it amusing, though. After all, scientist and others routinely
estimate things like the number of pollock in the Bering Sea (so they
can set fishing quotas), or the number of members of various endangered
species, so they can plan development and conservation efforts.
Or closer to human activity, they have a good idea of things like the
value of the marijuana crop in California, the size of the cocaine
trade, and things like that.
These are things that should be very hard to count, due to remoteness,
or due to the participants going to great lengths to be undetected. Yet
we count them.
But counting Linux users--well, that's beyond us!?
> 0%, 1%, 2%, even 3% are effectively zero in terms of sparking any
> mass migration to Linux on the desktop. For marketing purposes, you
> have two categories, i.e. Windows and "others".
You've got Windows, Mac, and other. Mac is small compared to Windows in
percentage, but its user base skews toward some more desirable
demographics. Mac does well among the trendsetters on the creative side
(artists, musicians, photographers, film makers) *and* it is does well
among the alpha geeks. That gets you two groups on the leading edge,
that are highly influential in determining what the masses do.
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:
> You can keep saying that to yourself if it makes you feel better,
> but as Linux marches into solid single digit territory with a clear
> long term growth trend, it makes software vendors that much more
> likely to include Linux in their cross platform plans. Increased
Someone needs to come up with a working revenue model first. How many
successful end-user for pay applications are there on Linux currently?
Until that happens, cross platform plans for people developing for
desktop users will continue to mean "Windows and Mac", not "Windows,
Mac, and Linux".
--
--Tim Smith
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
>
> I think the BBC study which pegged Linux at about 0.8 percent is probably
> in the ballpark because the BBC is not a techie site where Linux would show
> inflated numbers nor is it a really a site targeted at specific types of
> people.
>
> It's worldwide although I suspect the highest market share is from GB and
> the European community.
> This should actually help Linux as Linux seems to be more popular over
> there than in USA.
I agree the BBC site probably provides better stats than most, but to
some extent it will suffer some of the same demographic issues as any
other single web site. Aggregating stats from many different web
sites undoubtedly provides a more accurate picture. Stats from a
really popular search engine would run a close second though. Too
bad google no longer posts that sort of info.
> At any rate, no matter how you slice it, the market share for desktop Linux
> is horrendous.
>
> It's free and virtually nobody is using it.
>
> The Linux community needs to sit down and suck it up and figure out what is
> wrong with Linux and fix it.
Considering Linux is continually improving and expanding, I would say
that is exactly what is happening.
>
> Releasing one faulty distribution after another is not the way to fix it.
Tell you what, you publish your manifesto or design specs or whatever
for the Ultimate Path to Victory(tm), and the entire Linux community
can rally around it and march in lock-step.
Sorry, but as messy as it is, open experimentation with the freedom
to fail is just how progress happens in this community. It is like
capitalism or democracy or the scientific process... try and
centralize the control or streamline them too much, and you just
cut the heart out of them. It is in the diversity of opinion
that the rare insights are born.
Really, all these calls for unity and a single grand plan for
the traditionally decentralized Linux community is really rather
pointless. Might as well try and teach cats to line dance.
DFS
> You can keep saying that to yourself if it makes you feel better,
> but as Linux marches into solid single digit territory
Normally you're a straightforward kind of guy, but I see you have a naughty
sense of humor!!!
0.6%...0.8%...1.1%.... solid territory!
> with a clear
> long term growth trend, it makes software vendors that much more
> likely to include Linux in their cross platform plans. Increased
> application choice makes the platform more viable to users which
> in turn reinforces the growth trend. A larger install base also
> adds to the viral growth through peer advocacy and increased
> visibility.
With "advocates" like these twits around here, Linux needs some real
friends.
> Of course there will not be a mass migration... as I've said many
> times, it takes years to churn an entrenched install base. Just
> look at how long Netware stuck around long after the common wisdom
> said it was 'dead'. But the desktop Linux trend is clear, and
> just like server Linux, is defying the predictions of the critics.
> Linux is not 'dying out' or 'going nowhere'. It is clearly
> improving and growing.
So's my belly. Doesn't mean I won't die out.
> I find it interesting that success for MS has now essentially
> been redefined from 'crushing Linux' to 'holding off the mass
> migration'. :)
You weren't kidding - you *have* been drinking something.
DFS
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:48:57 -0500, DFS wrote:
>> Wal-mart just chose to remove one such choice because when offered a
>> choice people didn't choose that choice.
>
> No, they took the macines off the shelves because of low margins. They
> are still on the web.
Most everything Walmart sells is low-margin.
>> You cola wacks should pool your funds and start a Linux system
>> vendor, and watch your tiny fortunes grow to no fortunes.
>
> You show beg money from relatives to buy some honesty.
Where was I dishonest, (p)Rick?
>>> No one really knows how many people use linux.
>>
>> We know this for sure: not many.
>
> That depends on how you define not many.
Well dummy, "many" is always defined in terms of the total population
against which "many" is being compared. Take a wild stab at what total
population we're considering. You can do it.
DFS
> And its numbers tie in more with the BBC which says 0.8%.
>
> A roughly 0.2% boost during Ubuntu hysteria. One user in every 500.
>
> This is not good whichever way you want to cut and dice it.
Lucky for Linux developers they don't demand a return on their time or
effort.
DFS
> <tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com> wrote in message
>> You've got some sort of problem with the w3counter.com numbers other
>> than they are larger than you like? It seems they use a rather large
>> and diverse sample and are thus rather credible.
>
> The problem is that w3counter will primarily measure "technical
> people" and technical people are more likely to be using linux than
> your average user.
thad know this already, but he thinks he can play Mini-Advocate and throw a
spitball past us.
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
>
> The thing that scares me is that you take this 0.2% growth during Linux
> prime time as a positive thing. It is disastrous.
You know there was a time when server Linux was claiming only
0.2% of the install base over a similar time period, and yet
that doesn't seem to have stopped it from becoming a serious
server solution. The fact that Linux is gaining ground one
the desktop even when faced with an entrenched competitor like
Microsoft and then Apple as well... that doesn't exactly
scare me.
If you look at it another way, Linux has added better than 40%
to its desktop install base in the past year. Even conservative
estimates would put that at a gain of 5 to 10 million users.
If there is any network effect at play at all, we can expect
the expanded install base to yield faster growth.
I think the next few years are going to be fun times for us
Linux geeks. :)
Linonut
If true, that's a shame, since cross-platform coding can be pretty easy
once you get used to it.
I wonder what kind of "checks" Bill is referring to in the sig.
--
Programs today get very fat; the enhancements tend to slow the programs down
because people put in special checks. When they want to add some feature,
they'll just stick in these checks without thinking how they might slow the
thing down.
-- Bill Gates
Linonut
> In article <47e3b30d$0$25198$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com>,
> "amicus_curious" <AC...@sti.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > No one really knows how many people use linux.
>> >
>> Nor does it really matter.
>
> I find it amusing, though. After all, scientist and others routinely
> estimate things like the number of pollock in the Bering Sea (so they
> can set fishing quotas), or the number of members of various endangered
> species, so they can plan development and conservation efforts.
>
> Or closer to human activity, they have a good idea of things like the
> value of the marijuana crop in California, the size of the cocaine
> trade, and things like that.
>
> These are things that should be very hard to count, due to remoteness,
> or due to the participants going to great lengths to be undetected. Yet
> we count them.
No, we do not.
> But counting Linux users--well, that's beyond us!?
When you use the word "counting", you're making a mistake.
It is estimation, not counting.
--
Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning.
-- Bill Gates
Linonut
> Sorry, but as messy as it is, open experimentation with the freedom
> to fail is just how progress happens in this community. It is like
> capitalism or democracy or the scientific process... try and
> centralize the control or streamline them too much, and you just
> cut the heart out of them. It is in the diversity of opinion
> that the rare insights are born.
>
> Really, all these calls for unity and a single grand plan for
> the traditionally decentralized Linux community is really rather
> pointless. Might as well try and teach cats to line dance.
Bill Gates didn't teach cats to line dance -- he just made sure they
could find only his brand of cat food.
--
It turns out Luddites don't know how to use software properly, so you should
look into that. -- The reason we come up with new versions is not to fix
bugs. It's absolutely not. It's the stupidest reason to buy a new version I
ever heard. When we do a new version we put in lots of new things that
people are asking for. And so, in no sense, is stability a reason to move to
a new version. It's never a reason.
-- Bill Gates, http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html
Matt
> josh fickler wrote:
>> <tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com> wrote in message
>
>>> You've got some sort of problem with the w3counter.com numbers other
>>> than they are larger than you like? It seems they use a rather large
>>> and diverse sample and are thus rather credible.
>> The problem is that w3counter will primarily measure "technical
>> people" and technical people are more likely to be using linux than
>> your average user.
How many times do you think you can ignore that the thing to look at is
the rate of change of usage?
Bonus: if the "technical people" happen to be web developers, what does
that imply about future growth rates?
Hadron
> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> In article <47e3b30d$0$25198$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com>,
>> "amicus_curious" <AC...@sti.net> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > No one really knows how many people use linux.
>>> >
>>> Nor does it really matter.
>>
>> I find it amusing, though. After all, scientist and others routinely
>> estimate things like the number of pollock in the Bering Sea (so they
>> can set fishing quotas), or the number of members of various endangered
>> species, so they can plan development and conservation efforts.
>>
>> Or closer to human activity, they have a good idea of things like the
>> value of the marijuana crop in California, the size of the cocaine
>> trade, and things like that.
>>
>> These are things that should be very hard to count, due to remoteness,
>> or due to the participants going to great lengths to be undetected. Yet
>> we count them.
>
> No, we do not.
Yes we do.
These figures are indeed counted. The count might only be an estimate of
total but it is indeed a count.
>
>> But counting Linux users--well, that's beyond us!?
>
> When you use the word "counting", you're making a mistake.
No. He isn't.
>
> It is estimation, not counting.
Wrong. It is counting.
--
"There is no such thing as Intellectual Property"
Mark Kent
Head of Technology Strategy, BT Global
COLA Hypocrite
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
>>
>> The problem is that w3counter will primarily measure "technical
>> people" and technical people are more likely to be using linux than
>> your average user.
>
> thad know this already, but he thinks he can play Mini-Advocate and throw a
> spitball past us.
No, josh was simply confusing w3counter with w3schools. Thats been
all cleared up now. W3counter aggregates stats from almost 8000
web sites, and I highly doubt all of them are just geeky technical
sites.
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
No problem.
> Is this the page you're using to get your 2% linux number from?
>
> http://www.w3counter.com/stats/platforms/2/20/0
I got it from here:
http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php
And then selected other samples using the date pulldown on the
page.
> If so then there's a problem with your theory of 8,000 different websites.
> The most popular OS (Win-XP) shows up as getting just 10,997 visits. That's
> less than 1.5 visits per each of those "8,000" websites they collect data
> from. Linux on that list has a total of 286 visits. You'd think that with
> 8,000 websites worth of collective data the numbers would be higher than
> this. A LOT higher.
The URL I listed above has a bit more detail on it, including the
following text regarding their methodology:
This report was generated 02/29/2008 based on the last 20,873,774
unique visits to 7,930 websites. The last 25,000 page views to each
website are analyzed to identify unique visits. Some visits may occur
before the month of the report. Search engine market share is
computed as percentage of search-referred traffic to analyzed sites.
Live Search includes MSN searches. Partner sites are not included in
these shares.
Cheers,
Wang Mycock
http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2008/01/moshe-goldfarb-troll.html
http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/01/flatfish-troll.html
Gregory Shearman
> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeG...@netscape.net> stated in post
> 2695936.e...@netscape.net on 3/21/08 12:31 AM:
>
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:
>>>> A while back I posted some claims about growth of linux being
>>>> supported by published web stats. Someone asked for supporting
>>>> evidence, and I meant follow up with links but became buried
>>>> with work. I've finally had some spare time to dig into it,
>>>> but rather than post in that now probably cold thread, I'll
>>>> start a new one.
>>>>
>>>> I've collected up stats from three public sources, plugged them
>>>> into an OpenOffice spreadsheet and graphed the trends. They
>>>> very clearly show what I've been seeing for a while: even web
>>>> stats that show relatively low Linux share show consistent
>>>> growth over time. Also, as one would expect, sources with
>>>> very large samples collected from a broad demographic mix of
>>>> sites show a rather smooth growth line compared to a smaller
>>>> sample from one site. The lowest share I've found is the
>>>> 0.67 percent value from hitslink. It is not hard to find
>>>> stats in the 1 to 2 percent range. This is a considerable
>>>> improvement from a few years ago when 0.2 was the number being
>>>> thrown around. Just for fun, I've put the graphs on a web
>>>> page, including links to original source data:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.glaci.com/linuxstats.html
>>>>
>>>> Enjoy,
>>>>
>>>> Thad
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the ammo, Mercenary: after 10+ years of trying to give itself
>>> away, less than 1 in 100 users chooses Linux.
>>
>> An exclusive club.
>
> Exclusive? How?
Those who don't know, can't install their own OS or can't get someone to do
it for them or can't get to buy it preinstalled are excluded.
Linux seems to be getting less exclusive as time goes on... 8-)
>> When people have a choice to buy preloaded linux then things will
>> improve. But choice is pretty hard to come by.
>
> They do... from Dell, HP, Walmart (though only online now!), etc.
Walmart? Never heard of them here.... HP? Dell? I've never seen them offer
such deals in Australia... shipping whole units by air freight would bring
that ol' price right up out of reach of the average "Aussie" don't you
think?
When the Asus eeePC came out here they sold out of them in no time...
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
Gregory Shearman
> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>> DFS wrote:
>
>>> Thanks for the ammo, Mercenary: after 10+ years of trying to give
>>> itself away, less than 1 in 100 users chooses Linux.
>>
>> An exclusive club.
>
> ...of woman haters http://lonien.de/wjl/images/jpg/p200602260034.jpg
What's the point of your happy snaps?
>> When people have a choice to buy preloaded linux then things will
>> improve. But choice is pretty hard to come by.
> Wal-mart just chose to remove one such choice because when offered a
> choice people didn't choose that choice.
Walmart? WTF is that??? Some American thing no doubt.
> You cola wacks should pool your funds and start a Linux system vendor, and
> watch your tiny fortunes grow to no fortunes.
Why should we? I can get Linux systems if I want them... It just costs me
the same as it does to buy one with windows preinstalled.
>>> Only the hitslink numbers are meaningful. w3schools is just one
>>> site, with a technical focus.
>>
>> hitslink isn't even meaningful.
>
> It's very meaningful.
Oh I'm sure you think so.... ;-)
>> No one really knows how many people use linux.
>
> We know this for sure: not many.
Just too many millions to count, eh? Enough for me... bye for now..
Gregory Shearman
Linux developers aren't paid for their time? How did you come up with this
gem?
Snit
>>>> Thanks for the ammo, Mercenary: after 10+ years of trying to give itself
>>>> away, less than 1 in 100 users chooses Linux.
>>>
>>> An exclusive club.
>>
>> Exclusive? How?
>
> Those who don't know, can't install their own OS or can't get someone to do
> it for them or can't get to buy it preinstalled are excluded.
Ah, the excluded computer users are pissed - both of them!
>
> Linux seems to be getting less exclusive as time goes on... 8-)
One could say that. :)
>>> When people have a choice to buy preloaded linux then things will
>>> improve. But choice is pretty hard to come by.
>>
>> They do... from Dell, HP, Walmart (though only online now!), etc.
>
> Walmart? Never heard of them here.... HP? Dell? I've never seen them offer
> such deals in Australia... shipping whole units by air freight would bring
> that ol' price right up out of reach of the average "Aussie" don't you
> think?
>
> When the Asus eeePC came out here they sold out of them in no time...
You did not indicate that you were in reference to any particular country,
but, sure, I was in reference to the US... and there would be different
suppliers elsewhere.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing. - Unknown
RonB
> Linux developers aren't paid for their time? How did you come up with this
> gem?
DFS types pretty much whatever silly little thing that pops into his head.
He's "special," so we don't expect a lot out of him.
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
William Poaster
> * tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for the ammo, Mercenary:
>
> Just wanted to point out this term used by DFS, the cheap-shot artist
> who nonetheless misses the target.
>
>>> after 10+ years of trying to give itself
>>> away, less than 1 in 100 users chooses Linux.
>>
>> Actually, looks to me that it could be as much as 2 or 3 per 100 if
>> you look at a broad enough spectrum of stats.
>
> And leave the Microsoft-besotted U.S. out of the equation <grin>.
>
> Here's another thing. Those stats only get at people using the web for
> browsing. Also, what if most of the Linux users also used Windows, thus
> diluting the Linux stats? Are we going to start counting "half-Linux"
> users?
>
> What about people who perforce use Windows during the day, but have
> Linux systems at home, but are then don't do much browsing, but instead
> do other stuff with the box.
What about browsers like konqueror which can identify themselves as IE when
browsing, or Mozilla on 2000 or XP, or Netscape Navigator on MAC or XP, or
Opera on NT4, & even Safari on MAC OS X.
KDE > Internet & Network > Browser > Browser Identification > Add
identification.
This is why google gave up on browser stats, they don't work.
> If you just count browser usage, you leave a lot out of the equation.
> How about NNTP usage? FTP? Robots? Peer-to-peer? On-line gaming?
>
> And it all takes place in the presence of a still-powerful consumer
> desktop monopoly that is, as per its former CEO, always "running scared"
> and using marketing and business tactics that match its emotional state.
> A company that astroturfs the web with advertising and propaganda.
> Whose proponents astroturf blogs, article commentary, and other forums.
>
>>> Only the hitslink numbers are meaningful. w3schools is just one site, with
>>> a technical focus.
>>
>> You've got some sort of problem with the w3counter.com numbers other
>> than they are larger than you like? It seems they use a rather large
>> and diverse sample and are thus rather credible. More than 20
>> million visits aggregated from almost 8000 sites yielding 2 percent
>> linux share in their most recent sample. OK, not up to even Mac levels
>> but certainly better than the 'less than 1 percent' thrown around
>> by some around here. More importantly, the growth rate is consistent
>> with the what hitslink shows.
>
> The growth today of Apple systems and Linux systems is something to be
> welcomed with joy.
>
> Not with the snivelling arrogance of a "mercenary" who makes his living
> off of Microsoft software and then comes here to defend his status quo
> using ridicule and cheap-shots.
>
--
Mandriva 1 - 2008 - RC1 - 64bit OS.
COLA trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/
William Poaster
> Hadron <hadro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The thing that scares me is that you take this 0.2% growth during Linux
>> prime time as a positive thing. It is disastrous.
>
> You know there was a time when server Linux was claiming only
> 0.2% of the install base over a similar time period, and yet
> that doesn't seem to have stopped it from becoming a serious
> server solution. The fact that Linux is gaining ground one
> the desktop even when faced with an entrenched competitor like
> Microsoft and then Apple as well... that doesn't exactly
> scare me.
It scares M$ who declare that "Linux users made up over 17%
of *all* Internet users with a growth rate of *more than* 3% per annum."
M$ Execs declared this in a in sworn testimony before Courts in 2005,
& in every quarterly SEC filing.
> If you look at it another way, Linux has added better than 40%
> to its desktop install base in the past year. Even conservative
> estimates would put that at a gain of 5 to 10 million users.
> If there is any network effect at play at all, we can expect
> the expanded install base to yield faster growth.
>
> I think the next few years are going to be fun times for us
> Linux geeks. :)
Yup :-)
DFS
> DFS wrote:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> And its numbers tie in more with the BBC which says 0.8%.
>>>
>>> A roughly 0.2% boost during Ubuntu hysteria. One user in every 500.
>>>
>>> This is not good whichever way you want to cut and dice it.
>>
>> Lucky for Linux developers they don't demand a return on their time
>> or effort.
>
> Linux developers aren't paid for their time? How did you come up with
> this gem?
I looked at the big glob of OSS/GPL crapware out there, and looked at the
little glob of money paid for that crapware, and made a brilliant deduction.
josh fickler
"William Poaster" <w...@leafnode.amd64.eu> wrote in message
news:qa4fb5-...@leafnode.archimedes.eu...
> tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:
>
>> Hadron <hadro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The thing that scares me is that you take this 0.2% growth during Linux
>>> prime time as a positive thing. It is disastrous.
>>
>> You know there was a time when server Linux was claiming only
>> 0.2% of the install base over a similar time period, and yet
>> that doesn't seem to have stopped it from becoming a serious
>> server solution. The fact that Linux is gaining ground one
>> the desktop even when faced with an entrenched competitor like
>> Microsoft and then Apple as well... that doesn't exactly
>> scare me.
>
> It scares M$ who declare that "Linux users made up over 17%
> of *all* Internet users with a growth rate of *more than* 3% per annum."
> M$ Execs declared this in a in sworn testimony before Courts in 2005,
> & in every quarterly SEC filing.
I'm sure that dumb Willy or another one of the "advocates" could certainly
post an URL to just one of these "every quarterly SEC filings" where MS
states this.
I didn't think so because Willy is a clueless idiot and a liar.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
DFS
> How many times do you think you can ignore that the thing to look at
> is the rate of change of usage?
How many times do you think cola can ignore that a tiny absolute growth in
users on top of a miniscule base amounts to a huge growth rate?
> Bonus: if the "technical people" happen to be web developers, what
> does that imply about future growth rates?
I don't know.
Linonut
> The URL I listed above has a bit more detail on it, including the
> following text regarding their methodology:
>
> This report was generated 02/29/2008 based on the last 20,873,774
> unique visits to 7,930 websites. The last 25,000 page views to each
> website are analyzed to identify unique visits.
Unique visits. Another potential confound. And one wonders, what is
the time-window that defines a unique visit?
--
Security is, I would say, our top priority because for all the exciting
things you will be able to do with computers - organizing your lives,
staying in touch with people, being creative - if we don't solve these
security problems, then people will hold back.
-- Bill Gates
Ezekiel
"Gregory Shearman" <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:2393390.A...@netscape.net...
> DFS wrote:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> And its numbers tie in more with the BBC which says 0.8%.
>>>
>>> A roughly 0.2% boost during Ubuntu hysteria. One user in every 500.
>>>
>>> This is not good whichever way you want to cut and dice it.
>>
>> Lucky for Linux developers they don't demand a return on their time or
>> effort.
>
> Linux developers aren't paid for their time? How did you come
> up with this gem?
Of course they're paid for their time. That's why during business hours
they work writing proprietary closed-source Windows software. Ask Kohlmann
or Liarnut for details. Perhaps those two will tell us where we can
download the full source code to the software they work on.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Gregory.
> Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
--
Moshe Goldfarb
> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:2393390.A...@netscape.net...
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>> And its numbers tie in more with the BBC which says 0.8%.
>>>>
>>>> A roughly 0.2% boost during Ubuntu hysteria. One user in every 500.
>>>>
>>>> This is not good whichever way you want to cut and dice it.
>>>
>>> Lucky for Linux developers they don't demand a return on their time or
>>> effort.
>>
>
>
>> Linux developers aren't paid for their time? How did you come
>> up with this gem?
>
> Of course they're paid for their time. That's why during business hours
> they work writing proprietary closed-source Windows software. Ask Kohlmann
> or Liarnut for details. Perhaps those two will tell us where we can
> download the full source code to the software they work on.
And don't forget Mark Kent who in this group claims there is no such thing
as "intellectual property" but yet on his companies website he says the
exact opposite.
"At BT Global, our crown jewels are the services we supply to our
customers. With jNetX we own the intellectual property for our services,
allowing us to evolve the services as and when required."
Mark Kent
Head of Technology Strategy
http://www.jnetx.com/index.php?id=products
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Tim Smith
William Poaster <w...@leafnode.amd64.eu> wrote:
> What about browsers like konqueror which can identify themselves as IE when
> browsing, or Mozilla on 2000 or XP, or Netscape Navigator on MAC or XP, or
> Opera on NT4, & even Safari on MAC OS X.
> KDE > Internet & Network > Browser > Browser Identification > Add
> identification.
Firefox, though, does not make it easy to do that (you need an
extension), so it is a very good guess that most Firefox users are
accurately identifying themselves. Also, most people who do change the
identification will change it to IE.
Thus, you can get a check on the accuracy of OS stats from browser usage
by just looking at the users that identify as Firefox.
Also, changing the identification doesn't change the capabilities of the
browser. A site that is seriously interested in gathering stats about
its visitors can use javascript to figure out what is really running.
--
--Tim Smith
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
> tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:
>
>> http://www.glaci.com/linuxstats.html
>>
>> Enjoy,
>>
>> Thad
>
>
> I have tabulated some of the data from w3counter starting from the links
> found at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_desktop_operating_systems
[ gratuitous deletia ... ]
> I'd be happy if you'd like to use these numbers in your graphs. I never
> make mistakes, but you and other COLA readers might want to double-check
> them to be sure they match the numbers on the website.
Thanks for the input and if I get a chance I'll play with these
numbers and make new graphs. I'm in the process of wrapping up
a consulting contract and relocating myself from Connecticut
back to Wisconsin, so I probably won't get to it for a few days.
> The IE6+IE7 and the Midpoint (of the time period) columns are computed
> in my spread sheet, so you could discard those columns and write your
> own expressions to get those numbers if you want.
>
> I see you have included only Linux graphs ... I think the Mac and IE
> graphs add to the picture ... anyway by using the day-numbered raw data
> for Linux usage, we get a somewhat more precise picture for Linux ...
My purpose in generating the graphs that I did was just to address
the claim that linux was 'flat-lining' or 'going nowhere'. I
agree though, that it would be interesting to look at some of the
other related trends.
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
> In article <i6scb5-...@tux.glaci.com>,
> tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:
>> You can keep saying that to yourself if it makes you feel better,
>> but as Linux marches into solid single digit territory with a clear
>> long term growth trend, it makes software vendors that much more
>> likely to include Linux in their cross platform plans. Increased
>
> Someone needs to come up with a working revenue model first. How many
> successful end-user for pay applications are there on Linux currently?
>
> Until that happens, cross platform plans for people developing for
> desktop users will continue to mean "Windows and Mac", not "Windows,
> Mac, and Linux".
Actually, there already is quite a few commercial software
vendors selling Linux versions. Often these are business and
engineering applications that have been ported over from the
Unix world, but there are also plenty of vertical niches that
have ported Windows versions or that have done Linux pure plays
to try and take advantage of an under-served niche. Consumer
level software is still a bit soft but even that is happening.
There is probably a few dozen vendors selling consumer apps
through Linspire's CNR catalog. Is it up to the level of
the thousands of Vendors selling stuff for Windows? No, but
its a start. The idea that most Linux users will not pay for
software is myth. We just wont pay for crappy software.
The other thing at work here, though, is a movement toward
software as a free component to enable a subscription service.
Perhaps the best example of that is on-line games like World
of Warcraft or Eve Online. Eve already has a Linux port and
I would expect WoW to get one if the user base rises enough.
I expect we will see an increasing amount of commercial but
free of cost software finding its way to Linux as its
popularity rises.
Gregory Shearman
>
> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:2393390.A...@netscape.net...
>> Linux developers aren't paid for their time? How did you come
>> up with this gem?
>
> Of course they're paid for their time. That's why during business hours
> they work writing proprietary closed-source Windows software. Ask Kohlmann
> or Liarnut for details. Perhaps those two will tell us where we can
> download the full source code to the software they work on.
When did these COLA posters become Linux developers, and how does a sample
size of 2 prove this point?
Isn't Linus Torvalds paid to work on Linux? It only needs ONE example to
rebut your point, but a MAJORITY of examples to prove it.
Linonut
> In article <3v3fb5-...@leafnode.archimedes.eu>,
> William Poaster <w...@leafnode.amd64.eu> wrote:
>> What about browsers like konqueror which can identify themselves as IE when
>> browsing, or Mozilla on 2000 or XP, or Netscape Navigator on MAC or XP, or
>> Opera on NT4, & even Safari on MAC OS X.
>> KDE > Internet & Network > Browser > Browser Identification > Add
>> identification.
>
> Firefox, though, does not make it easy to do that (you need an
> extension), so it is a very good guess that most Firefox users are
> accurately identifying themselves.
Yep, no such option in about:config.
--
There are no significant bugs in our released software that any significant
number of users want fixed.
-- Bill Gates, Focus Magazine No. 43 (23 October 1995)
William Poaster
> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> In article <3v3fb5-...@leafnode.archimedes.eu>,
>> William Poaster <w...@leafnode.amd64.eu> wrote:
>>> What about browsers like konqueror which can identify themselves as IE when
>>> browsing, or Mozilla on 2000 or XP, or Netscape Navigator on MAC or XP, or
>>> Opera on NT4, & even Safari on MAC OS X.
>>> KDE > Internet & Network > Browser > Browser Identification > Add
>>> identification.
>>
>> Firefox, though, does not make it easy to do that (you need an
>> extension), so it is a very good guess that most Firefox users are
>> accurately identifying themselves.
>
> Yep, no such option in about:config.
Quick Preference Button
Access common preferences from a menu button. It includes settings for page
download and display, tabs, proxy, spoofing user agent (user agent switching),
enable or disable the Adblock extension and more.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1851
And another: User Agent Switcher
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/59
Couldn't be easier, except to a Mac troll of course..
These extensions can be quite useful for those morons who write a page trying to
*force* people to use IE. Consequently there could be a *lot* of people who use
Firefox & who either dual boot with windows or use windows, & have the
extension installed.
--
Mandriva 1 - 2008 - RC2 - 64bit OS.
COLA trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/
Linonut
> Linonut wrote:
>
>>> Firefox, though, does not make it easy to do that (you need an
>>> extension), so it is a very good guess that most Firefox users are
>>> accurately identifying themselves.
>>
>> Yep, no such option in about:config.
>
> Quick Preference Button
> Access common preferences from a menu button. It includes settings for page
> download and display, tabs, proxy, spoofing user agent (user agent switching),
> enable or disable the Adblock extension and more.
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1851
>
> And another: User Agent Switcher
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/59
>
> Couldn't be easier, except to a Mac troll of course..
Well, thinking about it, finding those add-ons is probably much more
likely for the average user than finding out about "about:config".
I haven't had to do much spoofing lately, anyway. If a site acts up,
screw it, they had their shot.
--
To create a new standard, it takes something that's not just a little bit
different; it takes something that's really new and really captures people's
imagination -- and the Macintosh, of all the machines I've ever seen, is the
only one that meets that standard.
-- Bill Gates
Tim Smith
William Poaster <w...@leafnode.amd64.eu> wrote:
> >> Firefox, though, does not make it easy to do that (you need an
> >> extension), so it is a very good guess that most Firefox users are
> >> accurately identifying themselves.
> >
> > Yep, no such option in about:config.
>
> Quick Preference Button
> Access common preferences from a menu button. It includes settings for page
> download and display, tabs, proxy, spoofing user agent (user agent
> switching),
> enable or disable the Adblock extension and more.
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1851
>
> And another: User Agent Switcher
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/59
Looks like Willy can't read.
--
--Tim Smith
Moshe Goldfarb
Poaster can barely breathe without being retrained daily.
Doris Gets Her Oates
Doris Gets Her Oates
Matt
> Actually, there already is quite a few commercial software
> vendors selling Linux versions. Often these are business and
> engineering applications that have been ported over from the
> Unix world, but there are also plenty of vertical niches that
> have ported Windows versions or that have done Linux pure plays
> to try and take advantage of an under-served niche. Consumer
> level software is still a bit soft but even that is happening.
> There is probably a few dozen vendors selling consumer apps
> through Linspire's CNR catalog. Is it up to the level of
> the thousands of Vendors selling stuff for Windows? No, but
> its a start. The idea that most Linux users will not pay for
> software is myth. We just wont pay for crappy software.
I believe there is considerable truth to the claim that Linux users
won't pay for software. But we can expect that that is more true of the
early adopters than it will be of the many who will take up Linux in the
next few years. The tight-wad segment of Linux users :-) will decrease
as a fraction of all Linux users even as the number of Linux users
increases. So commercial apps can get money from an increasing
fraction of an expanding base.
The bigger or older software niches (compiler, editor, OS, word
processor, spread sheet, email, browser, image processor) are the first
to be taken over by FOSS.
The smaller or newer, exploratory niches are filled by FOSS only later.
So we can expect to see people selling applications to run on top of
Linux and alongside FOSS apps as long as new software niches are arising.
Matt
> My purpose in generating the graphs that I did
Thad--
Thanks again for your work. Whether or not you put anything about it on
your web page, I would just ask you to take some minutes to make charts
of the three sets of numbers in a spreadsheet and see what you can see.
--Matt
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
Hi Matt. Glad you appreciate it. I've been a bit buried the last few
days with my warehouse/loft renovation project and some coding for one
of my clients, but I'll play with those numbers when I get a chance.
I also plan to do a review of the XO and post it here... assuming I
can sneak it away from the GF long enough. :)
Later,
Hadron
> Matt <ma...@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:
>> tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:
>>
>>> My purpose in generating the graphs that I did
>>
>> Thad--
>>
>> Thanks again for your work. Whether or not you put anything about it on
>> your web page, I would just ask you to take some minutes to make charts
>> of the three sets of numbers in a spreadsheet and see what you can see.
>
> Hi Matt. Glad you appreciate it. I've been a bit buried the last few
> days with my warehouse/loft renovation project and some coding for one
> of my clients, but I'll play with those numbers when I get a chance.
> I also plan to do a review of the XO and post it here... assuming I
> can sneak it away from the GF long enough. :)
Why would the GF be spending so much time with an under powered machine
with a non standard desktop?
I'm beginning to think you might be making all this up....
DFS
He's got her hooked up to the pulley and wheel contraption to charge the XO
system.
http://dev.laptop.org/~arjs/cp1.JPG
> I'm beginning to think you might be making all this up....
thad has taken a turn to the dark side recently.
bobbie
> Gregory Shearman wrote:
> > DFS wrote:
> >> itself away, less than 1 in 100 users chooses Linux.
>
>
> ...of woman hatershttp://lonien.de/wjl/images/jpg/p200602260034.jpg
>
DFS,
next time your picture is being taken, it would be polite if you took
your pacifier out first.
DFS
Isn't she cute? Too bad when she grows up she'll be treated poorly by
Linux/OSS jerks.
Of course, the hostility OSS lusers show toward women (if they even like
them in the first place) is usually a direct result of a lifetime of
emasculation by overbearing mothers. Ask Linonut for details.
Hadron
Rexx has some strange stories too as I recall. They read like some of
Marti's good night "fairy" tales.
Linonut
What!!? And deprive him of his bourbon?!
--
If something's expensive to develop, and somebody's not going to get paid,
it won't get developed. So you decide: Do you want software to be
written, or not?
-- Bill Gates