Linux strong #3 in OS market
OK
Hadron
> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
Hmm. At least in this one they didn't bundle Linux in with the CP/M and
QDos.
"This report lists the market share of the top operating systems in use
for browsing (not servers). This data is derived by aggregating the
traffic across our network of websites that use our service. "
--
Mais informado que gerente de funerária.
flatfish
<hadro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>OK <ot...@kaiser.de> writes:
>
>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
>
>Hmm. At least in this one they didn't bundle Linux in with the CP/M and
>QDos.
>
>"This report lists the market share of the top operating systems in use
>for browsing (not servers). This data is derived by aggregating the
>traffic across our network of websites that use our service. "
Yet Linux still hasn't managed to break that illusive 1 percent
barrier.
How does this constitute a "strong #3 " ?
Rick
--
Rick
Rick
> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
I thought the iPhone uses OS X and Safari. I wonder why they broke it out.
--
Rick
Robin T Cox
Presumably this only lists those operating systems for which there are
records of people paying to use them. There are no records of use, AFAIK,
of free downloads.
Also, in recent times the number of 'free' (i.e. pirate) copies of
Windows has drastically reduced owing to improved copy protection, and
planned obsolescence of Windows versions that were easy to pirate.
Therefore, you pays your money and takes your choice: call it a 'strong
#3' or a 'weak #1' it's all one and the same.
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
>
> Yet Linux still hasn't managed to break that illusive 1 percent
> barrier.
>
> How does this constitute a "strong #3 " ?
I'd be curious to know more about the type of sites that they are
aggregating their stats from. Their Linux numbers are coming in
much lower than what I see in the web logs and at my ISP clients.
They've had linux in the solid single digits for a while now.
I've never seen an average lower than 2%. Last time I looked
it was around 3.9 (and that was a while ago).
Thad
flatfish
wrote:
I wouldn't call 94 percent a weak #1.
I would however call Linux's failure to break even 1 percent, weak,
period.
No matter how you spin it, Linux comes up barely showing on the radar
screen.
Pretty bad for something that is free IMHO.
Robin T Cox
Except that 'free' doesn't appear on the radar, so how would you know?
Robin T Cox
My own straw poll on this NG has only shown 2 or at most 3 reports of
corporate rollouts of Vista going forward.
So the future is really bleak for M$, whatever the figures may look like
for the fag end of XP sales. And no doubt those were inflated by the
numbers of people who were trying to get XP rather than Vista before the
bar went down.
flatfish
wrote:
Sure it does.
Look at the w3schools site that gets posted here all the time.
Linux has a miserable share, and dropping, on that one as well.
Robin T Cox
Are you citing the w3schools site as the key indicator of the take-up of
Linux going forward?
Please explain why, and confirm that this is the site you mean:
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
> records of people paying to use them. There are no records of use, AFAIK,
> of free downloads.
>
> Also, in recent times the number of 'free' (i.e. pirate) copies of
> Windows has drastically reduced owing to improved copy protection, and
> planned obsolescence of Windows versions that were easy to pirate.
>
> Therefore, you pays your money and takes your choice: call it a 'strong
> #3' or a 'weak #1' it's all one and the same.
Actually, I think that site is basing its number on aggregated
web browser statistics from a bunch of sites. The accuracy of
the numbers will depend a lot on the nature of those sites and
the size of the sample. Google's web logs were placing Linux
at greater than 1 percent years ago (back when they published
those stats), so I am rather skeptical of these numbers.
I've seen other web stats that place Linux in the solid mid
single digits, though I can't say how representative those
samples are either.
Thad
Matt
I s'pose he means this page:
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
Here is the more important consideration (cross-platform browser Firefox
at 36.0% prevalence, up from 28.8% the previous year):
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
Firefox and ODF will break the Windows lock-in for millions, leading to
a general demand for porting applications to Linux and Mac, using
cross-platform systems such as Java and OpenGL.
flatfish
wrote:
Yes that is the site I was referring to.
>Here is the more important consideration (cross-platform browser Firefox
>at 36.0% prevalence, up from 28.8% the previous year):
>http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
>
>Firefox and ODF will break the Windows lock-in for millions, leading to
>a general demand for porting applications to Linux and Mac, using
>cross-platform systems such as Java and OpenGL.
And it should be.
Firefox IMHO is a superior browser to IE.
amicus_curious
"OK" <ot...@kaiser.de> wrote in message
news:e4g8l39rccprfr161...@4ax.com...
>
> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
This is very misleading since it actually only treats usage of OS for web
browsing. It is probably indicative of the truth insofar as the desktop
client systems are concerned, since there really are only two kinds of
computers commonly encountered, Wintel and Mac, so whatever else there is is
automatically third.
In the server market, however, Linux is 4th behind Windows, Unix, and IBM
Mainframe OS. It used to be 5th, but has managed to pass Netware in
popularity for new systems.
amicus_curious
<tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com> wrote in message
news:4iud25-...@tux.glaci.com...
500 houses. The counters reset every month, but for the first 3 days so
far of December, the hit ratio is Windows\Mac\Linux = 4387\1\26. Only the
people who live here can get an account and typically people only check once
or twice a week on the average, but there is almost never any Linux activity
although Mac is usually a lot more than showing today.
amicus_curious
"Robin T Cox" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:keY4j.495$ov2...@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
anymore.
Robin T Cox
Then let's have the evidence.
Tell me about more corporate rollouts known to you, and substantiate your
evidence. I'm all ears.
flatfish
wrote:
>
>"Robin T Cox" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
>news:keY4j.495$ov2...@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>> So the future is really bleak for M$, whatever the figures may look like
>> for the fag end of XP sales. And no doubt those were inflated by the
>> numbers of people who were trying to get XP rather than Vista before the
>> bar went down.
>>
>How long you chumps going to play that tune? No one seems to be listening
>anymore.
It's the same old song the Linux supporters have been singing for at
least 10 years.
While it is true that Firefox is cutting into Internet Explorer's
marketshare, it's WINDOWS VERSIONS of firefox that account for most of
the numbers.
Linux is still a virtual unknown on the desktop no matter how you look
at it and the Linux advocates will claim Linux can't be measured when
numbers unfavorable to Linux are posted but these same people will
post sites with numbers showing Linux in a favorable position, sites
which more often than not are Linux shill sites.
The Ghost In The Machine
<AC...@sti.net>
wrote
on Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:10:46 -0500
<475462ef$0$22448$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com>:
Makes no real difference. Companies will have to go
forward [*] with the Vista rollout by the time Windows
XP is discontinued -- probably in the 2011-2013 time
frame during the release of Longhorn Desktop Edition.
(Presumably, this is after Microsoft successfully lobbies
for the protection of the Windows Vista OS as a natural
monopoly, and legislates mandated licensing/DRM of all
Vista-capable desktop and server units. Additional issues
such as the resolution of the '402' code in HTTP might
also be addressed by then. "A penny a page" is not dead,
but it's currently somewhat hidden.)
[*] assuming they go forward with Microsoft.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
fortune: not found
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Linonut
> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
Give it up, asshole.
Linonut
>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
>
> "This report lists the market share of the top operating systems in use
> for browsing (not servers). This data is derived by aggregating the
> traffic across our network of websites that use our service. "
Yeah, that's a real objective measure of "market share".
If you believe that, you're just as bonehead-stupid as OK.
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
> I wouldn't call 94 percent a weak #1. I would however call Linux's
> failure to break even 1 percent, weak, period. No matter how you spin
> it, Linux comes up barely showing on the radar screen. Pretty bad for
> something that is free IMHO.
So tell us, flatty, why /you/ think Linux is doing so poorly in this
"hitslink" count?
--
Tux rox!
ed
Hash: SHA1
OK wrote:
> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
Market share is such a stupid valuation of a free product.
How can you use market share as a valuation of a user base? I'd
personally prefer to see the market share for linux distros to be zero,
otherwise it shows that some fools are paying for it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHVIJY4dyr7s6PRYgRApr/AJ40s36LWVO9oU2dJzPcJ3KUizUKhACfSnQl
vVxT0TluM/JNrW9F8B+2mEI=
=ym/N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
ed
Hash: SHA1
No it's misleading because no one should pay for linux. This is market
share, not user base.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHVIJ94dyr7s6PRYgRAp+nAJ9WBpp6uNVnyOm61BN8cth5Wv8z3gCfUFmu
Kl38jaoCTWBwUNodHczAqH0=
=R68I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
I can add one "No Vista, no way" sample. Even the CEO, who happily
"upgraded" to Vista on a new laptop (sold with Vista pre-installed) had
thhe IT dept put XP on it after about a month. We have *one* vista
install, which is used for the sole purpose of checking how the site
looks/works under vista. Everything else is either Linux, or XP.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHVIu9d90bcYOAWPYRAgP/AKDByCTIL64XBwCjyEzjaihbymIodwCgl3yp
PUNDmbj3Kn9r8hpzgxgDd30=
=rdz5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Who was the sick-minded SOB who called it a "lisp"?
"What's wrong with you?" "I litthhp."
"You what?" "I *litthhp* ."
amicus_curious
"ed" <e...@example.test> wrote in message
news:Cn%4j.808$bC3...@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> OK wrote:
>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
>
> Market share is such a stupid valuation of a free product.
>
> How can you use market share as a valuation of a user base? I'd
> personally prefer to see the market share for linux distros to be zero,
> otherwise it shows that some fools are paying for it.
Well, the non-scientific method shown in the link is user share after all
and does measure any market. It is simply a picture of what people are
using, not what they paid for. If there are any people using Linux on the
desktop, they may very well have gotten it for free, this study cannot tell
that. All it shows is that there are not many people using Linux.
OK
wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:48:44 +0100, Hadron
><hadro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>OK <ot...@kaiser.de> writes:
>>
>>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
>>
>>Hmm. At least in this one they didn't bundle Linux in with the CP/M and
>>QDos.
>>
>>"This report lists the market share of the top operating systems in use
>>for browsing (not servers). This data is derived by aggregating the
>>traffic across our network of websites that use our service. "
>
>Yet Linux still hasn't managed to break that illusive 1 percent
>barrier.
>
>How does this constitute a "strong #3 " ?
Strong #3 because the #4 OS used to surf the Web, the iPhone, is at
0.09%, really far from catching up the #3 spot, thus Linux is strongly
in 3rd place ;-)
OK
wrote:
>Robin T Cox wrote:
..except that the w3schools stats are based on hits on their own
website (unlike http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
which aggreate hits from a number of websites and webcounters)
Also note that w3schools is aimed at web developers, a population
*believed* to be vastly favorable to FF and Linux, but despite that
claim, IE and Windows comes our very far ahead among the web
developers visiting w3schools, Linux is even regressing...
Beside that OpenGL is not a 2nd class citizen on Windows, which means
its essentially dead (the 0.57% Linux users will not be enough to
justify any new developement on that antique 3D platform)
OK
wrote:
>Robin T Cox <nom...@nomail.net> wrote:
>>
>> Presumably this only lists those operating systems for which there are
>> records of people paying to use them. There are no records of use, AFAIK,
>> of free downloads.
>>
>> Also, in recent times the number of 'free' (i.e. pirate) copies of
>> Windows has drastically reduced owing to improved copy protection, and
>> planned obsolescence of Windows versions that were easy to pirate.
>>
>> Therefore, you pays your money and takes your choice: call it a 'strong
>> #3' or a 'weak #1' it's all one and the same.
>
>Actually, I think that site is basing its number on aggregated
>web browser statistics from a bunch of sites. The accuracy of
>the numbers will depend a lot on the nature of those sites and
>the size of the sample. Google's web logs were placing Linux
>at greater than 1 percent years ago
This is history rewriting at its best. The Google Zeitgeist used to
show Linux at exactly 1%, while other sources were at 0.28%
Please stop lying.
January 2002: 1%
http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist/jan02-pie.gif
one year later: 1%
http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist/jan03_pie.gif
last stat is from november 2003: 1%
http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist/nov03_pie.gif
WHAT A GROWTH!!!
OK
wrote:
>* Hadron fired off this tart reply:
>
>>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
>>
>> "This report lists the market share of the top operating systems in use
>> for browsing (not servers). This data is derived by aggregating the
>> traffic across our network of websites that use our service. "
>
>Yeah, that's a real objective measure of "market share".
Yes, of course, very objective. Users leave trails when surfing the
web.
Anyway, Google - the geek's search engine by excellence - never
counted more than 1% Linux hits, suggesting that Linux usage in the
general population was even lower than that:
http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist/jan02-pie.gif
http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist/nov03_pie.gif
OK
wrote:
>* OK fired off this tart reply:
>
>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
>
>Give it up, asshole.
http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist/nov03_pie.gif
Hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
OK
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>OK wrote:
>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
>
>Market share is such a stupid valuation of a free product.
>
>How can you use market share as a valuation of a user base? I'd
>personally prefer to see the market share for linux distros to be zero,
>otherwise it shows that some fools are paying for it.
Are you intellectually challenged or something? What web hits have to
do with paying or not?
OK
wrote:
>
Actually, there never was:
amicus_curious
"Linonut" <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote in message
news:wf%4j.11247$_m....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
using Linux to do much web surfing in general purpose areas. When some
Linux fan is surfing the web it seems to generally be in search of a driver
or two or else to download the weekly release of Ubuntu or even to find some
other Linux fan to comiserate with. Thus they have no time for the general
purpose sort of web surfing that regular people indulge in and so they do
not show up in the statistics.
amicus_curious
"Jim Richardson" <war...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:tmee25-...@dragon.myth...
>
> I can add one "No Vista, no way" sample. Even the CEO, who happily
> "upgraded" to Vista on a new laptop (sold with Vista pre-installed) had
> thhe IT dept put XP on it after about a month. We have *one* vista
> install, which is used for the sole purpose of checking how the site
> looks/works under vista. Everything else is either Linux, or XP.
>
of my own. We have one Linux machine that we use for a doorstop.
flatfish
wrote:
Exactly.
Linux as a desktop system so far has been a huge failure and the Mac
products are slowly but surely gaining ground, mostly because people
who buy iPods, iPhones etc are discovering the Mac way of doing things
and liking it. Also these same people have had it with Windows and are
looking for an alternative and Mac, NOT Linux IS that alternative.
Why people are ignoring Linux is a mystery to me, really, but they
are.
The best chance Linux has for desktop adoption is Ubuntu. Even my
sister, a complete computer neophyte has heard of Ubuntu and managed
to install it.
Her kids hated it though so away it went.
flatfish
Haha!
Seeing as the iphone is a couple of months old, Linux is about 15
years old, the iPhone is a phone first and all the other stuff
secondary, I would say Linux is in bad shape.
flatfish
Exactly!
I'm sure if one were to take stats from MIT's website, Linux would
make the single, maybe even very low double digit numbers.
However when looking at more mainstream sites, Linux does terrible
because mainstream is not using Linux in any numbers great enough to
make a difference.
The same can be said about these "Linux polls" by manufacturers like
Dell, nvidia etc.
Linux people, and tech people in general, read these things and vote
with a passion.
The rest of earth barely know about them.
Put that same poll on the CNN banner page and Linux would be crushed.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
"tens of thousands of Vista installs"? Bullshit.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHVLhud90bcYOAWPYRAqZ1AKCrhlucJD5aVyD6Vv7PUBtYyl9xMgCeMC6g
s590RYYXA4I1htU2YzfhWeA=
=3cop
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
You live and learn. Or you don't live long.
-- Lazarus Long
Rick
> On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:23:15 GMT, Robin T Cox <nom...@nomail.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 12:52:04 -0500, flatfish wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:48:44 +0100, Hadron
>>> <hadro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>OK <ot...@kaiser.de> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
>>>>
>>>>Hmm. At least in this one they didn't bundle Linux in with the CP/M
>>>>and QDos.
>>>>
>>>>"This report lists the market share of the top operating systems in
>>>>use for browsing (not servers). This data is derived by aggregating
>>>>the traffic across our network of websites that use our service. "
>>>
>>> Yet Linux still hasn't managed to break that illusive 1 percent
>>> barrier.
>>>
>>> How does this constitute a "strong #3 " ?
>>
>>Presumably this only lists those operating systems for which there are
>>records of people paying to use them. There are no records of use,
>>AFAIK, of free downloads.
>>
>>Also, in recent times the number of 'free' (i.e. pirate) copies of
>>Windows has drastically reduced owing to improved copy protection, and
>>planned obsolescence of Windows versions that were easy to pirate.
>>
>>Therefore, you pays your money and takes your choice: call it a 'strong
>>#3' or a 'weak #1' it's all one and the same.
>
>
> I wouldn't call 94 percent a weak #1. I would however call Linux's
> failure to break even 1 percent, weak, period.
> No matter how you spin it, Linux comes up barely showing on the radar
> screen.
> Pretty bad for something that is free IMHO.
Go learn about network effects.
--
Rick
DFS
> My own straw poll on this NG has only shown 2 or at most 3 reports of
> corporate rollouts of Vista going forward.
>
> So the future is really bleak for M$,
blah blah blah. Same Linux stupidity for 10 freakin' years.
Way to go out on a limb there, Braveheart.
Test for Mr. Wallace: find a serious person (Linux advocate meatheads cannot
be taken seriously) who says MS' future is bleak, and who has supporting
data - not weakminded speculation - for his conclusions.
And chew on this for a while before you waste your time
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3711556
DFS
> amicus_curious <AC...@sti.net> wrote:
>
>> Well we have tens of thousands of Vista installs in our company. I
>> have two of my own.
>>
>
> "tens of thousands of Vista installs"? Bullshit.
That's not many. I bet IBM alone has 350,000 desktop systems running XP.
cc
What's a more objective measure than people browsing the web? Unless
you're from the Kelsey Bjarnason school of statistics where every
unaccounted for computer is running Linux and statistics is some how
an invalid way of estimating user because it doesn't take into account
absolutely everyone. Most sites have it at 3-5% Linux. And why exactly
does everyone around here take that as an insult? Let's face it, the
nature of Linux is going to prevent it from getting mass appeal. In
fact, whenever suggestions are made to help it along, the most common
response is that no one wants it to be Windows and that it would
change everything good about Linux. Well if it's going to get the
userbase that Windows has, it would have to have the mass appeal that
Windows has. So, the very things that make Linux, Linux, will keep it
from a rapid rise to the top. Again, what's the big deal? So "strong
#3 in OS market" was surely intended to be at least partly an insult,
but I think it's a pretty good claim for a free OS built bottom up by
mostly volunteer work. Linux is a minority, but that's not always a
bad thing.
cc
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> OK wrote:
> >http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
>
> Market share is such a stupid valuation of a free product.
>
> How can you use market share as a valuation of a user base? I'd
> personally prefer to see the market share for linux distros to be zero,
> otherwise it shows that some fools are paying for it.
Market share is the percentage of people using your product. It has
*nothing* to do with price. Free products are in the market too,
competing.
Gregory Shearman
> Well we have tens of thousands of Vista installs in our company. I have
> two of my own. We have one Linux machine that we use for a doorstop.
I suppose 'doorstop' is the new word for 'firewall'.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
Matt
Right, since w3schools measures browser preferences of website
developers, things look even more favorable for Firefox: it implies that
an increasing proportion of website developers are using (hence
developing for) Firefox instead of (nonstandard, Windows-only) IE
browsers. So there is a snowball effect favoring Firefox.
The w3schools _trend_ toward Firefox is the thing to notice.
> Linux is even regressing...
First the most important apps (browser, office apps), then the OS.
> Beside that OpenGL is not a 2nd class citizen on Windows, which means
> its essentially dead (the 0.57% Linux users will not be enough to
> justify any new developement on that antique 3D platform)
There is recent work on OpenGL standardization. It is used in
cross-platform games. ActiveX is limited to Windows.
Matt
> I run a communit website for homeowners in a gated subdivision with
> about 500 houses.
And do you make the site presentable when viewed with Firefox? Or is it
best viewed with IE?
If your site looks like hell with FF, we couldn't be surprised that you
get few Linux hits.
Tattoo Vampire
> Well we have tens of thousands of Vista installs in our company. I have
> two of my own. We have one Linux machine that I use for a buttplug.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
The question wasn't about XP, it was about Vista. ac is full of bovine
excretement.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHVRKjd90bcYOAWPYRAimlAKDvhJLfA0bQM3DD5AjR/NhA0KGHLACfUrhU
hM/+F0mE5AgFkYxN7mzkpWA=
=lnIn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight -- it's not just a good idea, it's
the law!
Linonut
> On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 19:06:12 -0500, "amicus_curious" <AC...@sti.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> So tell us, flatty, why /you/ think Linux is doing so poorly in this
>>> "hitslink" count?
>>>
>>I would think that the answer would be obvious to anyone. People are not
>>using Linux to do much web surfing in general purpose areas. When some
>>Linux fan is surfing the web it seems to generally be in search of a driver
>>or two or else to download the weekly release of Ubuntu or even to find some
>>other Linux fan to comiserate with. Thus they have no time for the general
>>purpose sort of web surfing that regular people indulge in and so they do
>>not show up in the statistics.
That's pretty funny. I use Linux heavily, I do like to reconfigure and
tinker endlessly, and download software, as well as do a lot of coding,
at work and at home. And yet I have time to surf for other stuff.
Your theory, amicus, is bullockus.
> Linux as a desktop system so far has been a huge failure and the Mac
> products are slowly but surely gaining ground, mostly because people
> who buy iPods, iPhones etc are discovering the Mac way of doing things
> and liking it. Also these same people have had it with Windows and are
> looking for an alternative and Mac, NOT Linux IS that alternative.
I actually have a surprise for you guys, and it may make you shit your
pants. However, as my wife has a surgery coming up at noon, it will
take me awhile to research it to see just how much of surprise it is to
you.
And, I suspect it is /not/ much of a surprise to Microsoft, since they
have access to research resources that you idiots apparently don't.
Stay tuned.
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
> Yes, of course, very objective. Users leave trails when surfing the
> web.
Sure they do, but is even Google on the trail?
> Anyway, Google - the geek's search engine by excellence - never
> counted more than 1% Linux hits, suggesting that Linux usage in the
> general population was even lower than that:
>
> http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist/jan02-pie.gif
> http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist/nov03_pie.gif
That doesn't mean shit. That's from when Win98 was popular, for one
thing.
Lying asshole.
--
Tux rox!
chrisv
>Well we have tens of thousands of Vista installs in our company.
You are a liar.
Linonut
> On Dec 3, 5:18 pm, Linonut <lino...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
>> * Hadron fired off this tart reply:
>>
>> >>http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
>>
>> > "This report lists the market share of the top operating systems in use
>> > for browsing (not servers). This data is derived by aggregating the
>> > traffic across our network of websites that use our service. "
>>
>> Yeah, that's a real objective measure of "market share".
>>
>> If you believe that, you're just as bonehead-stupid as OK.
>
> What's a more objective measure than people browsing the web?
Actually counting people. All other counts are extremely suspect.
When will you idiots understand this?
Web hits, even in aggregrate, mean almost /nothing/ about Linux usage.
They may mean something about "Linux usage for surfing web sites", or
"searching through Google", but even that is subject to obfuscating
factors.
And when you throw Windows bots into the mix? Forgeddaboutit.
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
> On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 17:16:57 -0500, Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut>
> wrote:
>
>>* OK fired off this tart reply:
>>
>>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
>>
>>Give it up, asshole.
>
> http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist/nov03_pie.gif
>
> Hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
An /old/ pie chart.
As I said, an asshole.
--
Tux rox!
Peter Köhlmann
A few days ago Heise (a computer magazine company) published their
web-browser stats.
Their pages are accessed by 2% Konqueror *alone* and that would indicate
about 4-5% linux users (using KDE or Gnome), as KDE and Gnome have about
same distribution among german users. Not counted are the users of other
desktop environments. This is *desktop* usage of linux. It also shows that
linux usage among Heise readers massivly surpasses the apple users in
germany
Now, granted, Heise is a selected sample (exactly like the sites shown by
our resident "misunderstanders"), so it would not show a generally
applicable usage stat
It illustrates that web counters are always selected samples, they depend on
the distribution of readers
--
La perfection est atteinte non quand il ne reste rien à ajouter,
mais quand il ne reste rien à enlever. (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry)
Hadron
> * cc fired off this tart reply:
>
>> On Dec 3, 5:18 pm, Linonut <lino...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
>>> * Hadron fired off this tart reply:
>>>
>>> >>http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
>>>
>>> > "This report lists the market share of the top operating systems in use
>>> > for browsing (not servers). This data is derived by aggregating the
>>> > traffic across our network of websites that use our service. "
>>>
>>> Yeah, that's a real objective measure of "market share".
>>>
>>> If you believe that, you're just as bonehead-stupid as OK.
>>
>> What's a more objective measure than people browsing the web?
>
> Actually counting people. All other counts are extremely suspect.
>
> When will you idiots understand this?
Sometimes I really wonder if you are a programmer. You seem incapable of
understanding even the basics of sampling theory.
Counting OS hits at a wide appeal web site is as good as you're going
to, practically, get. It indicates people USING the OS.
2-3% of Traffic is as good as 2-3% of the market share.
Please don't repeat that a "free os" can not have a market share because
you just come across as an anal retentive idiot. It's blindingly obvious
what is meant.
Hadron
> On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 12:29:56 -0600, thad05 wrote:
>
>> flatfish <flat...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yet Linux still hasn't managed to break that illusive 1 percent
>>> barrier.
>>>
>>> How does this constitute a "strong #3 " ?
>>
>> I'd be curious to know more about the type of sites that they are
>> aggregating their stats from. Their Linux numbers are coming in much
>> lower than what I see in the web logs and at my ISP clients. They've had
>> linux in the solid single digits for a while now. I've never seen an
>> average lower than 2%. Last time I looked it was around 3.9 (and that
>> was a while ago).
>>
>> Thad
>
> My own straw poll on this NG has only shown 2 or at most 3 reports of
*snip*
Guffaw. On *THIS* NG.
You get the "thicky award" for this week. Ask Mark Kent for it.
amicus_curious
"Matt" <ma...@themattfella.zzzz.com> wrote in message
news:Ue75j.21851$B25....@news01.roc.ny...
It looks the same with either, of course. It's just FrontPage stuff, after
all.
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
>
> Sometimes I really wonder if you are a programmer. You seem incapable of
> understanding even the basics of sampling theory.
>
> Counting OS hits at a wide appeal web site is as good as you're going
> to, practically, get. It indicates people USING the OS.
>
> 2-3% of Traffic is as good as 2-3% of the market share.
>
> Please don't repeat that a "free os" can not have a market share because
> you just come across as an anal retentive idiot. It's blindingly obvious
> what is meant.
Insulting language aside, I have to side with Hadron on this point.
Barring actual house to house sampling, web stats are probably about
the best we will get to estimate real world deployment on the
consumer desktop. My only argument is with the accuracy of some
of the samples thrown around here. I am skeptical of a source
that claims only 0.5% Linux share when I've seen plenty of other
sources with very large samples that show it in the solid single
digits.
Ultimately, I don't get very cranked up about it one way or another.
Whether it is 0.5 or 5.0%, Linux meets my particular needs and appears
to be constantly expanding and improving. That is enough for me.
Later,
Thad
OK
wrote:
Oh, I see, ActiveX is what you think to be the equivalent of OpenGL.
Hahahaha. Keep writing shell scripts.
chrisv
>>
>> Please don't repeat that a "free os" can not have a market share because
>> you just come across as an anal retentive idiot.
That's your buddy amicus who makes that claim, so tell him.
OK
wrote:
>* OK fired off this tart reply:
>
>> On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 17:16:57 -0500, Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>* OK fired off this tart reply:
>>>
>>>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
>>>
>>>Give it up, asshole.
>>
>> http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist/nov03_pie.gif
>>
>> Hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
>
>An /old/ pie chart.
>
>As I said, an asshole.
Hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!... here is a fresh one:
The Ghost In The Machine
<ot...@kaiser.de>
wrote
on Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:55:23 +0100
<t25bl3l9m303ahc13...@4ax.com>:
[snippage]
>>> Beside that OpenGL is not a 2nd class citizen on Windows, which means
>>> its essentially dead (the 0.57% Linux users will not be enough to
>>> justify any new developement on that antique 3D platform)
>>
>>There is recent work on OpenGL standardization. It is used in
>>cross-platform games. ActiveX is limited to Windows.
>
> Oh, I see, ActiveX is what you think to be the equivalent of OpenGL.
ActiveX is far more general than OpenGL. For starters,
ActiveX allows for a component to manage the entire machine
(video, audio, file system, keyboard, mouse, etc.), if the
user accepts the "trust" requester upon its start and the
user has sufficient privileges.
ActiveX should be able to run on Linux with WinE installed,
though I'm not sure of the scope of its activities in such
an environment.
OpenGL, apart from some specialized computational uses
(e.g., 4x4 matrix solutions), is purely visual. It is
also being upstaged by DirectX10 on Windows Vista, and
it is possible someone's raising unrealistic expectations
regarding DirectX10:
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/11/26/flight-simulator-developer
in the hopes that people will go to Windows for gaming,
and developers will port each game's graphics engine
to DirectX10.
> Hahahaha. Keep writing shell scripts.
Python in particular can have OpenGL bindings. It appears
Python has ActiveX capabilities as well on Windows -- which
is logical enough, since ActiveX (actually, COM) after
all has QueryInterface and a well-known calling sequence.
I do not know how Python would manage DirectX10 bindings.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux. Because life's too short for a buggy OS.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Matt
Well of course I meant Direct3D. Whatever---point is it's a throw-away
platform-specific API.
Tattoo Vampire
> I would think that the answer would be obvious to anyone. People are not
> using Linux to do much web surfing in general purpose areas. When some
> Linux fan is surfing the web it seems to generally be in search of a
> driver or two or else to download the weekly release of Ubuntu or even to
> find some other Linux fan to comiserate with. Thus they have no time for
> the general purpose sort of web surfing that regular people indulge in and
> so they do not show up in the statistics.
Pfffft. I spend precious little time tinkering with my Linux installation. I
let it update when it needs to and that's about it. Everything I needed to
web-surf, do email, watch videos and listen to audio, etc, was in place
after my initial install. It worked with all my hardware without even a
hiccup.
flatfish
I don't doubt that.
cc
> * cc fired off this tart reply:
>
> > On Dec 3, 5:18 pm, Linonut <lino...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
> >> * Hadron fired off this tart reply:
>
> >> >>http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
>
> >> > "This report lists the market share of the top operating systems in use
> >> > for browsing (not servers). This data is derived by aggregating the
> >> > traffic across our network of websites that use our service. "
>
> >> Yeah, that's a real objective measure of "market share".
>
> >> If you believe that, you're just as bonehead-stupid as OK.
>
> > What's a more objective measure than people browsing the web?
>
> Actually counting people. All other counts are extremely suspect.
>
> When will you idiots understand this?
When will you idiots understand that almost all people who use a
computer, surf the web. You're not more likely to visit websites (in
general websites, not specific websites) because you use Windows. The
OS has nothing to do with it. So you want to estimate how many users
there are of an OS. People surf the web regardless of OS. Therefore
web stats are an unbiased way of estimating users of an OS. Like all
statistics, it has to been done right, but there are people out there
doing.
> Web hits, even in aggregrate, mean almost /nothing/ about Linux usage.
>
> They may mean something about "Linux usage for surfing web sites", or
> "searching through Google", but even that is subject to obfuscating
> factors.
See, either you're purposefully being a jackass, or you just don't
understand statistics. It doesn't mean anything about "Linux usage for
surfing websites." It means "Linux usage for surfting websites vs. all
other OSes," which is proportionate "Linux usage vs. all other OSes."
> And when you throw Windows bots into the mix? Forgeddaboutit.
>
Are Windows bots running on Linux now? It's not volume of traffic
that's measured.
cc
Yes, exactly. "Linux usage < 1%" posts are generally just looking to
rile up some people, so I wasn't trying to defend that. Linonut got
mad at me and snipped my main points, but 3rd place and hopefully
growing is nothing to be pissy about or try to exaggerate.
Linonut
> Sometimes I really wonder if you are a programmer. You seem incapable of
> understanding even the basics of sampling theory.
What does programming have to do with sampling theory?
In any case, I've approached statistical analysis from three different
angles in my academic "career":
o statistical thermodynamics and quantum theory
o stats for psychology, including various forms of multivariate
analysis
o signal-detection theory
It is you who does not seem to understand "sampling theory".
> Counting OS hits at a wide appeal web site is as good as you're going
> to, practically, get. It indicates people USING the OS.
Even that is /not/ necessarily true.
Browser headers modifications, proxies, even packet spoofing are
possible.
> 2-3% of Traffic is as good as 2-3% of the market share.
No. It is /not/.
Never heard of web bots?
> Please don't repeat that a "free os" can not have a market share because
> you just come across as an anal retentive idiot. It's blindingly obvious
> what is meant.
I, myself, have never made that mistake in this and related threads.
In any case....
Peter, I think you can add "sampling theory" to the list of Hadron's
"accomplishments".
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
> Insulting language aside, I have to side with Hadron on this point.
> Barring actual house to house sampling, web stats are probably about
> the best we will get to estimate real world deployment on the
> consumer desktop.
Then they are not very good.
This is a world of spoofing, web bots, automated astroturfing, open proxies, and browser obfuscation.
> My only argument is with the accuracy of some
> of the samples thrown around here. I am skeptical of a source
> that claims only 0.5% Linux share when I've seen plenty of other
> sources with very large samples that show it in the solid single
> digits.
I certainly would not contend that, when count the massive number of
consumers out there, that Linux has more than a single-digit
representation. I know very few consumers who have the savvy and
fortitude to go beyond what is handed to them by "the system".
Sure, a fair number will try a new browser.
But a new operating system? No way.
> Ultimately, I don't get very cranked up about it one way or another.
> Whether it is 0.5 or 5.0%, Linux meets my particular needs and appears
> to be constantly expanding and improving. That is enough for me.
I get cranked up about a small sampling of idiots continually posting
the same small sampling of "market hits" web sites.
You might as well sample the viewer statistics for advertisements to
determine the state of higher education in the U.S.
It is ludicrous in the extreme. Trolling numbskulls like Hadron,
flatfish, and OK rely on some very basic misunderstandings of statistics.
I do hope to have some more interesting numbers at some point, but my
wife's hospital stay is my priority.
--
Sampling Linux usage by browser statistics?
You might as well sample the viewer statistics for advertisements to
determine the state of higher education in the U.S.
Linonut
>> Actually counting people. All other counts are extremely suspect.
>>
>> When will you idiots understand this?
>
> When will you idiots understand that almost all people who use a
> computer, surf the web. You're not more likely to visit websites (in
> general websites, not specific websites) because you use Windows. The
> OS has nothing to do with it. So you want to estimate how many users
> there are of an OS. People surf the web regardless of OS. Therefore
> web stats are an unbiased way of estimating users of an OS.
You need to really check out the statistical meaning of "bias".
> Are Windows bots running on Linux now? It's not volume of traffic
> that's measured.
Obviously. (My god! The obtuseness!)
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
> Yes, exactly. "Linux usage < 1%" posts are generally just looking to
> rile up some people, so I wasn't trying to defend that. Linonut got
> mad at me and snipped my main points, but 3rd place and hopefully
> growing is nothing to be pissy about or try to exaggerate.
I'm not "mad" at you. I'm dumbfounded that you think the stats are
meaning full.
There is almost no way, unless you can access the logs of all the access
points through which those packets come and go, to determine what the
real numbers are.
And, even if you do, it /still/ does not tell you anything more than
Linux usage by people who browse.
The "market hits" sites can be affected by various things, and until you
account for them (preferable by multivariate analysis), you won't have
reliable numbers.
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 08:36:17 -0500, Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut>
> wrote:
>
>>>>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
>>>>
>>>>Give it up, asshole.
>>>
>>> http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist/nov03_pie.gif
>>>
>>> Hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
>>
>>As I said, an asshole.
>
> Hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!... here is a fresh one:
>
> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
That's not fresh.
I see I gave you an orgasm by calling you an "asshole".
Just what kind of /pervert/ are you?
--
Tux rox!
Hadron
> * cc fired off this tart reply:
>
>> Yes, exactly. "Linux usage < 1%" posts are generally just looking to
>> rile up some people, so I wasn't trying to defend that. Linonut got
>> mad at me and snipped my main points, but 3rd place and hopefully
>> growing is nothing to be pissy about or try to exaggerate.
>
> I'm not "mad" at you. I'm dumbfounded that you think the stats are
> meaning full.
>
> There is almost no way, unless you can access the logs of all the access
> points through which those packets come and go, to determine what the
> real numbers are.
>
> And, even if you do, it /still/ does not tell you anything more than
> Linux usage by people who browse.
What is gob smacking is your inability to see outside of the box. There
will NEVER be "real" numbers. It's all based on sampling.
>
> The "market hits" sites can be affected by various things, and until you
> account for them (preferable by multivariate analysis), you won't have
> reliable numbers.
Bullshit. Find a website that appeals across all trenches and see the
relative proportions.
Remember we are talking percentages, NOT REAL NUMBERS.
--
La televisión es una hija del cine que le ha salido disipada y de malas
costumbres.
-- Ramón J. Sénder. (1902-1982) Escritor español.
Linonut
> Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> writes:
>
>> And, even if you do, it /still/ does not tell you anything more than
>> Linux usage by people who browse.
>
> What is gob smacking is your inability to see outside of the box. There
> will NEVER be "real" numbers. It's all based on sampling.
Obviously, Sherlock.
It is the validity of the sampling, and the conclusions one /can/ draw
from the samples, that is the issue.
But then, you have recently added "sampling theory expert" to your list
of qualifications to troll in this newsgroup.
> Bullshit. Find a website that appeals across all trenches and see the
> relative proportions.
Okay. Find one. One that is also /not/ polluted by web bots and
automated web server attacks or intrusion attempts, and that is never
accessed via proxies.
> Remember we are talking percentages, NOT REAL NUMBERS.
Idiot.
--
Tux rox!
cc
> * cc fired off this tart reply:
>
> > Yes, exactly. "Linux usage < 1%" posts are generally just looking to
> > rile up some people, so I wasn't trying to defend that. Linonut got
> > mad at me and snipped my main points, but 3rd place and hopefully
> > growing is nothing to be pissy about or try to exaggerate.
>
> I'm not "mad" at you. I'm dumbfounded that you think the stats are
> meaning full.
I'm dumbfounded you don't.
> There is almost no way, unless you can access the logs of all the access
> points through which those packets come and go, to determine what the
> real numbers are.
Real numbers isn't the point, the stats are a good estimate, which is
what a stat is supposed to be.
> And, even if you do, it /still/ does not tell you anything more than
> Linux usage by people who browse.
You keep snipping the part where I make my case for Linux usage by
people who browse being relevant. Linux users who don't browse are in
the same boat as Windows users who don't browse, as in a small
minority. And OS usage has nothing to do with browsing the Internet,
other than the fact that some form of an OS is necessary. So, again,
Linux users browsing/Total OS users browsing = Linux Users/Total OS
users, within some small error of course.
> The "market hits" sites can be affected by various things, and until you
> account for them (preferable by multivariate analysis), you won't have
> reliable numbers.
>
If you want to discredit sites like the one in the OP, that's fine.
But there are good stats out from sites that aren't affected by one OS
or the other. As in, using Linux doesn't predispose you to going to,
or avoiding, a site.
cc
> * cc fired off this tart reply:
>
> >> Actually counting people. All other counts are extremely suspect.
>
> >> When will you idiots understand this?
>
> > When will you idiots understand that almost all people who use a
> > computer, surf the web. You're not more likely to visit websites (in
> > general websites, not specific websites) because you use Windows. The
> > OS has nothing to do with it. So you want to estimate how many users
> > there are of an OS. People surf the web regardless of OS. Therefore
> > web stats are an unbiased way of estimating users of an OS.
>
> You need to really check out the statistical meaning of "bias".
I think you do. Good stats *are* using sites that aren't more likely
to include some parties more than others.
> > Are Windows bots running on Linux now? It's not volume of traffic
> > that's measured.
>
> Obviously. (My god! The obtuseness!)
>
Then why bring up windows bots?
cc
> * Hadron fired off this tart reply:
>
>
> >> And, even if you do, it /still/ does not tell you anything more than
> >> Linux usage by people who browse.
>
> > What is gob smacking is your inability to see outside of the box. There
> > will NEVER be "real" numbers. It's all based on sampling.
>
> Obviously, Sherlock.
>
> It is the validity of the sampling, and the conclusions one /can/ draw
> from the samples, that is the issue.
The conclusions we can draw is that it is not perfect, but a pretty
good estimation.
> But then, you have recently added "sampling theory expert" to your list
> of qualifications to troll in this newsgroup.
>
> > Bullshit. Find a website that appeals across all trenches and see the
> > relative proportions.
>
> Okay. Find one. One that is also /not/ polluted by web bots and
> automated web server attacks or intrusion attempts, and that is never
> accessed via proxies.
Google.
Are web server attacks or intrusion attempts dependent on OS? Are
proxies dependent on OS?
> > Remember we are talking percentages, NOT REAL NUMBERS.
>
> Idiot.
>
I will now take this time to point out that Kier is stinky and has an
agenda. That is relevant to Linonut somehow, I just know it.
Ben Miller-Jacobson
I hate to say it but the trolls have a little bit of a point on this
one. Linux really isn't all that extensively used on desktops. It should
be, but so far, it isn't. I doubt that Linux has over 3% market share in
the US at least, based on personal experience. No matter how inacurate
the numbers they sight may be, Linux desktops just aren't that common yet.
--
"Doomed to waving around penguins with bells attached."
Random Flatfish Nym:
echo.valley_26809
Kier
Three percent isn't bad, though. When MS started out Windows on the
desktop for hoome users it didn't much in the way of competition and it
filled up most of the available space there. Now it's entrenched and Linux
has to unseat them to make any progress.
Remember, Linux hasn't been heavily aimed at desktop users until quite
recently in its development. I don't see it overtaking Windows for a long
whilke, if ever, but it'll go on growing in its own quiet way and that's
really all it needs to do.
--
Kier
Linonut
> Real numbers isn't the point, the stats are a good estimate, which is
> what a stat is supposed to be.
Show me some calculations that indicate the stats to be good estimates.
Just calculate me a friggin' alpha-value for cripesake!
> If you want to discredit sites like the one in the OP, that's fine.
> But there are good stats out from sites that aren't affected by one OS
> or the other. As in, using Linux doesn't predispose you to going to,
> or avoiding, a site.
So put up some URLs, dude.
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
> On Dec 5, 7:45 am, Linonut <lino...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
>> * cc fired off this tart reply:
>>
>> >> Actually counting people. All other counts are extremely suspect.
>>
>> > When will you idiots understand that almost all people who use a
>> > computer, surf the web. You're not more likely to visit websites (in
>> > general websites, not specific websites) because you use Windows. The
>> > OS has nothing to do with it. So you want to estimate how many users
>> > there are of an OS. People surf the web regardless of OS. Therefore
>> > web stats are an unbiased way of estimating users of an OS.
>>
>> You need to really check out the statistical meaning of "bias".
>
> I think you do. Good stats *are* using sites that aren't more likely
> to include some parties more than others.
Maybe.
> Then why bring up windows bots?
Ay yi yi!
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
> Linonut wrote:
>> * Hadron fired off this tart reply:
>
> I hate to say it but the trolls have a little bit of a point on this
> one. Linux really isn't all that extensively used on desktops.
Uh, Beavis, isn't that what I've said in quite a few posts now?
> It should
> be, but so far, it isn't. I doubt that Linux has over 3% market share in
> the US at least, based on personal experience. No matter how inacurate
> the numbers they sight may be, Linux desktops just aren't that common yet.
Actually, where I work, they are.
Where my wife works, in research, they are. (Her group doesn't have
any, but they fairly common.)
Anyway, try asking people what OS they use on their cell phone, and get
back to me.
--
Tux rox!
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
>
> I hate to say it but the trolls have a little bit of a point on this
> one. Linux really isn't all that extensively used on desktops. It should
> be, but so far, it isn't. I doubt that Linux has over 3% market share in
> the US at least, based on personal experience. No matter how inacurate
> the numbers they sight may be, Linux desktops just aren't that common yet.
Agreed. I think Linux is still in the single digits on the desktop.
Still, in a world of over a billion computer users, that is not a
small number of real users. Niche perhaps in the scale of the overall
market, but a big enough niche for some serious return if you are the
only one providing a particular product or service into it. New
growth markets do usually provide the best opportunity for larger
returns.
And yes, desktop Linux is still growing, whatever the wintrolls try
to say otherwise. All the ISP stats I have access to show steady
growth, and none show deployment share under 2 percent. Some
areas show over 4. Stats thrown around here claiming Linux is
under 1 percent just don't ring true to me.
Later,
Thad
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
>
> Three percent isn't bad, though. When MS started out Windows on the
> desktop for hoome users it didn't much in the way of competition and it
> filled up most of the available space there. Now it's entrenched and Linux
> has to unseat them to make any progress.
>
> Remember, Linux hasn't been heavily aimed at desktop users until quite
> recently in its development. I don't see it overtaking Windows for a long
> whilke, if ever, but it'll go on growing in its own quiet way and that's
> really all it needs to do.
Yes, Linux does not need to own the desktop to be a viable desktop,
it just needs a large enough share to attract the software and
hardware vendors, publishers, trainers, etc. For the geekier users
like most on this forum, its been there for years, and recently it
has crossed the threshold for pretty much everyone else. It now
shares company with the Mac as a viable niche player. Mac is off
on one end serving the turnkey appliance and multimedia creation
segment, Linux is on the other end serving the economy netsurfing
and computer geek segment, and Microsoft is sitting in the fat
middle being nibbled away at from both sides.
Granted there is a lot of blurring and overlap in my simplistic
description, but there is no shame in admitting the geek roots of
Linux. It has provided the install base from which it is expanding
into the rest of the computer world.
Thad
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
>
> Actually, where I work, they are.
>
> Where my wife works, in research, they are. (Her group doesn't have
> any, but they fairly common.)
>
> Anyway, try asking people what OS they use on their cell phone, and get
> back to me.
Yes, Linux is very prevalent on the dekstop in most places I work
also, but then I am being hired into places developing Linux based
products, so that is hardly sunrising. There are still plenty of
other places where Linux has not penetrated the desktop, or at
least not to any meaningful amount, so I no doubt the Windows
advocates being hired into Windows environments are having their
perceptions similarly reinforced. Of course reality is an
averaging of those two perceptions.
Actually, the current assignment aside, I usually do my Linux
consulting from home, and then I can honestly say I work in a
100% Linux environment. :)
Cheers,
Thad
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
>
>> If you want to discredit sites like the one in the OP, that's fine.
>> But there are good stats out from sites that aren't affected by one OS
>> or the other. As in, using Linux doesn't predispose you to going to,
>> or avoiding, a site.
>
> So put up some URLs, dude.
I'm thinking google is rather widely used and crosses many
demographics. Unfortunately they don't publish the OS stats
anymore.
Thad
Linonut
I'll be checking out Google Analytics soon.
--
Tux rox!
flatfish
>
>Three percent isn't bad, though. When MS started out Windows on the
>desktop for hoome users it didn't much in the way of competition and it
>filled up most of the available space there. Now it's entrenched and Linux
>has to unseat them to make any progress.
I would say 3 percent as a worldwide figure, maybe, because the rest
of the world seems more in tune with Linux desktop than the USA.
Here in the USA it's definitely less than 1 percent on the desktop.
Linux just is not seen here, but I will say that Macs are popping up
all over the place, especially laptops.
On my last business trip a couple of weeks ago, I saw quite a few Macs
around.
Not a single Linux sighting however.
>Remember, Linux hasn't been heavily aimed at desktop users until quite
>recently in its development. I don't see it overtaking Windows for a long
>whilke, if ever, but it'll go on growing in its own quiet way and that's
>really all it needs to do.
Agreed.
Linonut
> Linux just is not seen here, but I will say that Macs are popping up
> all over the place, especially laptops. On my last business trip a
> couple of weeks ago, I saw quite a few Macs around. Not a single
> Linux sighting however.
Except, of course, for the people who see my computer and ask me
"Is that Vista?"
--
Tux rox!
flatfish
wrote:
Not even a spec in the scheme of things.
Neither is my dual boo Thinkpad.
Linux is ignored as a desktop system, it just is.
Why?
I'm not sure.
Mac is gaining ground and fast.
I saw Macs everywhere, on the plane, in the sky lounge, at the hotel,
Starbucks etc.
Many more sightings than I have ever seen.
Linux?
Not a single one.
And I do look.
The Ghost In The Machine
<flat...@linuxmail.org>
wrote
on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:59:55 -0500
<1ihgl3t51aml21kia...@4ax.com>:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 13:56:27 -0500, Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut>
> wrote:
>
>>* flatfish fired off this tart reply:
>>
>>> Linux just is not seen here, but I will say that Macs are popping up
>>> all over the place, especially laptops. On my last business trip a
>>> couple of weeks ago, I saw quite a few Macs around. Not a single
>>> Linux sighting however.
>>
>>Except, of course, for the people who see my computer and ask me
>>"Is that Vista?"
>
> Not even a spec in the scheme of things.
> Neither is my dual boo Thinkpad.
>
> Linux is ignored as a desktop system, it just is.
> Why?
> I'm not sure.
I am. Microsoft has far better marketing, more money,
and a lot more chutzpah.
> Mac is gaining ground and fast.
No evidence of that here. *Vista* is gaining ground (if
one believes the sales numbers; there's many questions
on that), *Mac* is staying steady or losing ground, and
*Linux* appears to be categorized as the dark horse/other
OS -- which may very well be an accurate characterization
as it is well-nigh invisible to most; what most people
see is the pretty colors of the background.
Even Windows can do that. ;-)
> I saw Macs everywhere, on the plane, in the sky lounge, at the hotel,
> Starbucks etc.
> Many more sightings than I have ever seen.
>
> Linux?
> Not a single one.
> And I do look.
Then you've not looked very hard, although part of the issue might be
where.
http://www.linux.com/articles/30054
appears to have been slightly
mangled as an article but details a
yet-another-series-of-Linux-switches behind the scenes, and
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/082207-worldbeat-singapore-airlines-puts-a.html
apparently has Singapore airlines providing computing
power for every passenger -- with Red Hat as the OS.
The computer has among other things a USB access port
and a central terabyte server, storing the movies.
Presumably a stick can also be used on that port, though
the article doesn't specifically mention such (it mentions
USB keyboards and mice -- the former is far bulkier than
a storage stick and the latter is an interesting notion
but is also somewhat larger than a stick).
One hopes that the OS is highly secure in that seat;
otherwise one runs into some interesting issues. I
doubt WinXP would perform well there without an image
reinstall every flight segment.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
flatfish
I'm talking about people using Windows on their desktops.
Not some plane using it for entertainment.
JetBlue BTW uses Windows 2000 for their kiosks.
So does Al Italia.
The Hotel I stayed at used Windows 2000 for their systems as well.
However, it was all Mac in the airport, lounge, hotel etc.
The things were so great in number I thought I stumbled on a Mac
convention.
FWIW mostly young adults with them.
cc
> * cc fired off this tart reply:
>
> > Real numbers isn't the point, the stats are a good estimate, which is
> > what a stat is supposed to be.
>
> Show me some calculations that indicate the stats to be good estimates.
>
> Just calculate me a friggin' alpha-value for cripesake!
I don't have access to all the data. Damn closed source statistics! Of
course there is the possibility that it is all some Microsoft
conspiracy and the numbers aren't real at all, but entirely made up.
But I prefer to trust people like Google and the BBC.
> > If you want to discredit sites like the one in the OP, that's fine.
> > But there are good stats out from sites that aren't affected by one OS
> > or the other. As in, using Linux doesn't predispose you to going to,
> > or avoiding, a site.
>
> So put up some URLs, dude.
http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2005/10/user_agents_2.php
BBC before this supposed Microsoft infestation and Linux lock out that
I see posted in random spots here sometimes. So yes, it's two years
old, but from an unbiased site. How would the BBC's homepage be biased
one way or another? "The figures may, however, mask a *slightly*
higher use of Linux" (emphasis mine). There's a good explanation that
follows.
cc
> > But there are good stats out from sites that aren't affected by one OS
> > or the other. As in, using Linux doesn't predispose you to going to,
> > or avoiding, a site.
>
> So put up some URLs, dude.
>
http://www.komar.org/halloween/2004/stats/
Note the paragraph explaining bias *towards* open source products.
Again, a little old, but what can you do.
http://nixtechnica.blogspot.com/2006/10/market-share-of-operating-systems.html
People read digg regardless of OS don't they? "How to host a website
on any computer" was the website that was dugg. *Any computer.* Newest
and best percentage I've found!
flatfish
wrote:
The main point is that no matter where you look, geek bloggers
excepted, the numbers clearly show Linux at less than 1 percent.
It's no secret and all the waffling in the world will not change that.
Linonut
> Linux is ignored as a desktop system, it just is.
> Why?
> I'm not sure.
It is easy to know why:
1. Essentially no advertising of Linux in the conventional avenues:
TV, radio, newspaper, magazines, and billboards.
2. Trepidation about the unknown.
Number 2 is easy to understand. Computers have always been regarded as
a sacerdotal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dragon_Masters -- an
engrossing book, by the way) discipline, removed from mortal men. This
regard is, of course, perpetuated by Microsoft, who paper over the
complexities (with indifferent success) with the aptly named "wizards".
Number 1 needs more explanation. Part of it is obviously the
deleterious effects of the monopoly, which itself is due to
Microsoft's efforts, the general clumsiness and fecklessness (and
perhaps fairness and naivety) of the competition, and a hands-off
attitude on the part of the current U.S. administration. Part of it, as
DFS notes, is that it is simply very difficult to make money on what can
be found for "free".
> Mac is gaining ground and fast.
> I saw Macs everywhere, on the plane, in the sky lounge, at the hotel,
> Starbucks etc. Many more sightings than I have ever seen.
I still have seen only a couple of Macs (two friends each have one).
They at least should help people understand that Windows is not a
necessity.
> Linux? Not a single one. And I do look.
So do I. But I haven't seen the screens of any user's laptops for
awhile. I see (and it seems to be confirmed) that Lowe's uses Linux.
Of course, I see that about half my coworkers use Linux, but they are
motivated and savvy computer users.
In the hospital where my wife is, all the data entry and logging
stations are Windows. (I heard a worker calling IT about her "froze up"
billy-box.)
The data telemetry systems are not Windows. They're Philips branded,
but I don't know if they're a UNIX or not.
The hospital was interesting. I brought my work laptop, which just
happens to be the same DELL model as the hospital worker's (DELL
Latitude D820). I tried to get Linux to access all the wireless access
points, but it didn't work.
Then I booted to XP, and the vendor-supplied Intel software wouldn't
work. It got to where I'd click "Connect", and then say it couldn't
"update the profile", and would crap out.
I tried Window's own setup, and I had to do two things: (1) Disable
Intel's override of control for wireless; (2) Manually start the
"Windows Zero Configuration" services. It connected, but still would
not serve up an IP address.
So much for "it just works" on Windows.
I went back to Linux and monkeyed around a bit and got it to work.
I found that the connections were pretty weak and sometimes would crap
out, so Windows may just have had a hard time with a weak signal.
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
>> Just calculate me a friggin' alpha-value for cripesake!
>
> I don't have access to all the data. Damn closed source statistics! Of
> course there is the possibility that it is all some Microsoft
> conspiracy and the numbers aren't real at all, but entirely made up.
> But I prefer to trust people like Google and the BBC.
See below.
>> > If you want to discredit sites like the one in the OP, that's fine.
>> > But there are good stats out from sites that aren't affected by one OS
>> > or the other. As in, using Linux doesn't predispose you to going to,
>> > or avoiding, a site.
>>
>> So put up some URLs, dude.
>
> http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2005/10/user_agents_2.php
>
> BBC before this supposed Microsoft infestation and Linux lock out that
> I see posted in random spots here sometimes. So yes, it's two years
> old, but from an unbiased site. How would the BBC's homepage be biased
> one way or another? "The figures may, however, mask a *slightly*
> higher use of Linux" (emphasis mine). There's a good explanation that
> follows.
Well, the title is very misleading:
Operating systems visiting the BBC homepage
The author says /nothing/ about possible confounding factors. 0.41%?
Maybe. Or maybe it is 10x that.
I notice it includes OS/2 Warp, with a ridiculous number of 0.001%. So
where are the other < 0.04% OS's?
--
Tux rox!