Linux market share jumps from 0.6% to 0.8% in June
Subway steel
fluke?
In the past there were claims that these numbers were not accurate, somehow
manipulated and untrustworthy. Now that they show something positive for
Linux are they suddenly valid?
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
Linux = 0.8%
- ss
Phil Da Lick!
> Any thoughts on this? Anybody think that this will continue or is it a
> fluke?
>
> In the past there were claims that these numbers were not accurate, somehow
> manipulated and untrustworthy. Now that they show something positive for
> Linux are they suddenly valid?
No. Move along.
Subway steel
"Phil Da Lick!" <phil_t...@spammerskissmyarse.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:B7ydnQEVHd4...@posted.plusnet...
You are obviously a Windows user so your view may be skewed. (User-Agent:
Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421))
While you might not believe the stats are a positive sign for Linux I think
that anybody looking at a 12 or 24 month view of this would see that there
has been very steady growth in Linux usage.
Rick
Personally, I think the numbers are still under reported.
--
Rick
Subway steel
"Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:WoydnfdVUvAaoPfV...@supernews.com...
Just curious - What do you think that the actual numbers are? I realize
this is a wild-ass guess so I'm not going to hold you to the numbers or ask
for proof.
But what's your gut estimate on this?
>
> --
> Rick
Phil Da Lick!
> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_t...@spammerskissmyarse.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:B7ydnQEVHd4...@posted.plusnet...
>> Subway steel wrote:
>>> Any thoughts on this? Anybody think that this will continue or is it a
>>> fluke?
>>>
>>> In the past there were claims that these numbers were not accurate,
>>> somehow manipulated and untrustworthy. Now that they show something
>>> positive for Linux are they suddenly valid?
>>
>> No. Move along.
>
> You are obviously a Windows user so your view may be skewed. (User-Agent:
> Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421))
So?
> While you might not believe the stats are a positive sign for Linux I think
> that anybody looking at a 12 or 24 month view of this would see that there
> has been very steady growth in Linux usage.
*sigh*
Market share stats are a load of old bollocks.
Rick
Wild-ass guess... 1-5% worldwide. No scientific numbers... just a feel
from what I have been reading.
--
Rick
Hadron
Only if you're an idiot. Oh! You are!
Funny how they can drive direction every where else except for COLA!
--
"Off the top of my head, I can't tell you which sites. They are ones that
throw up some kind of dialog, I change the user agent and look at them
again, then move on."
-- Rick <no...@nomail.com> telling lies in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Hadron
Subway steel
Well I am absolutely certain that my wild-ass guess is correct. No
scientific numbers or anything but I think that it's somewhere between 0%
and 100%. Just a guess :)
* * Gotta go do some work. Later folks * *
- ss
>
> --
> Rick
Phil Da Lick!
> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_t...@spammerskissmyarse.hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Subway steel wrote:
>>> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_t...@spammerskissmyarse.hotmail.com> wrote
>>> in message news:B7ydnQEVHd4...@posted.plusnet...
>>>> Subway steel wrote:
>>>>> Any thoughts on this? Anybody think that this will continue or is
>>>>> it a fluke?
>>>>>
>>>>> In the past there were claims that these numbers were not
>>>>> accurate, somehow manipulated and untrustworthy. Now that they
>>>>> show something positive for Linux are they suddenly valid?
>>>> No. Move along.
>>> You are obviously a Windows user so your view may be
>>> skewed. (User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421))
>> So?
>>
>>
>>> While you might not believe the stats are a positive sign for Linux
>>> I think that anybody looking at a 12 or 24 month view of this would
>>> see that there has been very steady growth in Linux usage.
>>
>> *sigh*
>>
>>
>> Market share stats are a load of old bollocks.
>
> Only if you're an idiot. Oh! You are!
>
> Funny how they can drive direction every where else except for COLA!
>
Who's talking about cola fucknuts? Linux usage stat are not accurate due
to the way it is distributed.
Now fuck off to the other thread and provide proof of your linux advocacy.
Hadron
Market Share of desktop systems. Since one can assume Linux is MORE
likely to be online than a Windows system (Linux is much more secure)
then it leads us to assume that if the Windows % is within a reasonable
error band then so are the Linux ones.
Linux machines are logged as 0.6% by a site like the BBC. I see no
reason to call them liars.
>
> Now fuck off to the other thread and provide proof of your linux
> advocacy.
It has happened in the past few minutes. But you're too dumb to realise.
--
If you take both of those factors together then WinXP is a flop, selling
*less* than Win 98 by a factor of two.
comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they the lunacy in advocacy
Clogwog
news:486a3636$0$25951$6e1e...@read.cnntp.org...
Linux is bigger than Windows NT now. Aaaargh, they are doing great!
Let's wait for Roy to tell us that the 0.12% growth is due to him posting
his spam in cola!
--
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Clogwog
Linux is bigger than Windows NT now. Aaaargh, they are doing great!
Phil Da Lick!
Measured how? Linux is a hobbyist system that can be downloaded and
obtained in a variety of different ways which are virtually untrackable.
Windows sales are pretty trackable (if you believe what MS says). You
might as well compare apples and oranges and conclude that they must be
a banana.
> Since one can assume Linux is MORE
> likely to be online than a Windows system
This assumption is flawed.
> (Linux is much more secure)
Yes. It is. By design.
> then it leads us to assume that if the Windows % is within a reasonable
> error band then so are the Linux ones.
A statistician would love this statement. A conclusion based upon a
flawed premise.
> Linux machines are logged as 0.6% by a site like the BBC. I see no
> reason to call them liars.
Nobody is suggesting they are liars, however if you want to use websites
to log desktop usage statistics [total bollocks] then you would have to
(a) forcibly connect every desktop in the world online and hope to god
it connects to website in question [good luck with that] and (b) force
said website to fully support every flavour of OS that would visit it
[even better luck with that - which site did you quote again?]
If you cannot meet both these criteria then this method of desktop usage
measuring is flawed.
Just because a particular piece of information from a particular source
*appears* to support something you obviously care passionately about
that does not make it true.
Hadron
Once more. Since you seem to be so dense you can not understand.
Websites measure the browser and platform.
It is that simple. There are errors of course. But what %? Not big
enough to skew the readings.
And here's the thing : we all agree that Windows machines are less
secure than Linux. From that we can deduce that many windows machines
are kept offline. Not so with Linux which is inherently more secure (for
the hard of thinking - this is me advocating Linux ins a realistic and
honest way - do try it sometime).
The rest even you should be able to work out.
The less reliable method is real life. I am yet to see a Linux desktop
anywhere outside of an R&D lab other than mine and some small businesses
where I installed Ubuntu and then Debian for them to run their internet
access, music and general admin tasks. Something it is very suited to -
a pity iTunes does not exist for it.
Phil Da Lick!
> Once more. Since you seem to be so dense you can not understand.
>
> Websites measure the browser and platform.
Of the hits to *that particular site*
Recipe for making yourself look a dumbass:
#1: Quote a website that is known to be skewed against linux and
therefore unlikely to have a large number of linux machines visit. "0.6%
by a site like the BBC".
#2: mix in its browser and platform stats.
#3: conveniently ignore the fact that not all machines everywhere on the
face of the earth are connected online.
and...
Hey presto! Instant Warped Market Share Stats [tm]!
Tune in tomorrow when we'll be quantifying the stars in the Universe
base upon observable evidence from the South Pole.
JEDIDIAH
Based on the fact that 3rd party vendor support gets better over time
rather than worse, I think that the self-serving numbers that Lemmings like
to come up with are just that.
Obviously the guys at ATI and NV and Intel and Hauppauge know something
that the peanut gallery doesn't.
--
iTunes is not progressive. It's a throwback. |||
/ | \
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Rick
Linux machines are logged as 0.8% by a site like the
marketshare.hitslink.com.
Maybe you can provide a link that shows BBC's market share measurements?
>
>
>> Now fuck off to the other thread and provide proof of your linux
>> advocacy.
>
> It has happened in the past few minutes. But you're too dumb to realise.
--
Rick
Rick
> Rick <no...@nomail.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 10:27:39 -0400, Subway steel wrote:
>>
>>> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:WoydnfdVUvAaoPfV...@supernews.com...
>>>> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:50:45 -0400, Subway steel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Any thoughts on this? Anybody think that this will continue or is it
>>>>> a fluke?
>>>>>
>>>>> In the past there were claims that these numbers were not accurate,
>>>>> somehow manipulated and untrustworthy. Now that they show something
>>>>> positive for Linux are they suddenly valid?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
>>>>>
>>>>> Linux = 0.8%
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - ss
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I think the numbers are still under reported.
>>>
>>> Just curious - What do you think that the actual numbers are? I
>>> realize this is a wild-ass guess so I'm not going to hold you to the
>>> numbers or ask for proof.
>>>
>>> But what's your gut estimate on this?
>>>
>>>
>> Wild-ass guess... 1-5% worldwide. No scientific numbers... just a feel
>> from what I have been reading.
>
> Mine would be nearer what the BBC measured - certainly less than 1%.
Why don't you think it closer to what marketshare.hitslink.com measured?
--
Rick
Hadron
> Hadron Quacked off this little classic:
>> Once more. Since you seem to be so dense you can not understand.
>>
>> Websites measure the browser and platform.
>
> Of the hits to *that particular site*
Which part of OS independence or non reliance do you not understand? You
think readers of the BBC are unlikely to use Linux too?
Hadron
You are joking? This was done to death ages ago. But I am willing to
agree to 0.8% if that makes you happier. But in fairness to you, you
dont believe High Plains Hypocrite's ridiculous claim of around 15%. Or
do you now?
--
BOY is Microsoft doomed! LOL!
comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy
Rick
No Link? Thanks anyway.
--
Rick
bbgruff
Purely imo:-
You are right - these numbers are probably not accurate, and therefore
untrustworthy - as absolute values.
For example, on the same site, you will find figures for browser trends, that
show Firefox at a tad less than 20%. imo, that figure is highly biased (not
intentionally) towards American use. Other sites show similar figures for
the U.S. but very much higher ones for many European countries and for
Australasia.
What IS (again imo) interesting is the *trend*.
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=11
This shows that Linux user base growing (according to that site) in a fairly
steady fashion from 0.48% to 0.8% in 10 months. and much more than doubling
since Jan 2007.
To repeat:-
imo that 0.8% figure is probably low (wordwide)
the absolute value is difficult/impossible to come by.
there *does* seem to be a trend, quite positive, quite high.
also, it seems to be accelerating.
Ezekiel
"Subway steel" <f...@bar.com> wrote in message
news:486a3636$0$25951$6e1e...@read.cnntp.org...
> Any thoughts on this? Anybody think that this will continue or is it a
> fluke?
It's a fluke. It's probably some hacked linux server (like the one at
www.schestowitz.com) that is attacking these web sites to get the hit rate
up. Once Roy's ISP takes his server off-line to get disinfected the linux
usage numbers will go back down to 0.6%.
> In the past there were claims that these numbers were not accurate,
> somehow manipulated and untrustworthy. Now that they show something
> positive for Linux are they suddenly valid?
>
> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
>
> Linux = 0.8%
BAWAWAWAW!!! Even after the linux nuts try to artificially inflate the
numbers they still can't get it past 1%.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Rick
Moshe Goldfarb.
And that number is likely to be a bit on the high side because of the
crybaby Linux users slamming the site to get support for that video viewer
or whatever it was they were crying about.
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
7
> Any thoughts on this? Anybody think that this will continue or is it a
> fluke?
>
> In the past there were claims that these numbers were not accurate,
> somehow manipulated and untrustworthy. Now that they show something
> positive for Linux are they suddenly valid?
>
> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
>
> Linux = 0.8%
Is this statistic gathered using an approved technique?
If so, where is the documentation for the approved methodology?
At the last count embedded Linux was selling 3 million Embedded Linux
Gadgets PER DAY!!!!
Also 1 Million new desktop installations per week.
These are minimum figures and can be independently verifiable
by searching for press releases and counting them all up.
Tim Smith
7 <website_...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> Also 1 Million new desktop installations per week.
>
> These are minimum figures and can be independently verifiable
> by searching for press releases and counting them all up.
That explains it. Here's what 7 does:
1. Someone issues a press release, saying they have installed N Linux
desktops somewhere.
2. This press release is reported in 100 blogs and 10 magazines.
3. These 100 blog reports and 10 magazine reports are added up by 7 to
give 110*N Linux desktops.
--
--Tim Smith
Moshe Goldfarb.
Time for your meds again mjcr....
Moshe Goldfarb.
I thought he was counting the flakes of dandruff falling from he encrusted
scalp.
The Ghost In The Machine
<website_...@www.enemygadgets.com>
wrote
on Tue, 01 Jul 2008 19:31:16 GMT
<8Cvak.19096$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
> Subway steel wrote:
>
>> Any thoughts on this? Anybody think that this will continue or is it a
>> fluke?
>>
>> In the past there were claims that these numbers were not accurate,
>> somehow manipulated and untrustworthy. Now that they show something
>> positive for Linux are they suddenly valid?
>>
>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
>>
>> Linux = 0.8%
>
>
> Is this statistic gathered using an approved technique?
Who does the approval?
> If so, where is the documentation for the approved methodology?
>
>
> At the last count embedded Linux was selling 3 million Embedded Linux
> Gadgets PER DAY!!!!
>
> Also 1 Million new desktop installations per week.
That would translate into a 50 million or $15B PC marketplace.
At least.
Google suggests that's about 1/5 of worldwide 2008 figures:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/775833.html
>
> These are minimum figures and can be independently verifiable
> by searching for press releases and counting them all up.
>
w3counter is an interesting contrast to markethits, suggesting
that as of the end of February 2008 Linux has cracked the 2%
desktop barrier.
http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php?date=2008-02-29
That would translate into about 5.6M desktop installations, if
w3counter's and Google's figures are anywhere near accurate.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #110309238:
item * f(item *p) { if(p = NULL) return new item; else return p; }
JEDIDIAH
> In article <8Cvak.19096$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
> 7 <website_...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>> Also 1 Million new desktop installations per week.
>>
>> These are minimum figures and can be independently verifiable
>> by searching for press releases and counting them all up.
>
> That explains it. Here's what 7 does:
>
> 1. Someone issues a press release, saying they have installed N Linux
> desktops somewhere.
>
> 2. This press release is reported in 100 blogs and 10 magazines.
...that assumes that there's no "unique key" available.
>
> 3. These 100 blog reports and 10 magazine reports are added up by 7 to
> give 110*N Linux desktops.
--
How did irc manage to get so pretentious about civility |||
of discourse when it doesn't even allow for the free and / | \
open exchange of ideas?
Phil Da Lick!
Which part of "making broad sweeping statements based upon evidence from
one source (a source which doesn't fully support all possible
alternatives) is pretty fucking stupid and pointless" do you not understand?
It's about as valid as the 3.6% reported by the w3school site somebody
mentioned here the other day. i.e. not at fucking all.
Andrew Halliwell
> Any thoughts on this? Anybody think that this will continue or is it a
> fluke?
>
> In the past there were claims that these numbers were not accurate, somehow
> manipulated and untrustworthy. Now that they show something positive for
> Linux are they suddenly valid?
They show an upward trend, but no, they're most likely a vast under-estimate
of the true number of linux installs.
> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
>
> Linux = 0.8%
Nice that it's gone up though. By the time linux reaches 2%, it might
actually hold 10 times that in actual desktops.
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
Hadron
Definitely High Plains Hypocrite. Totally clueless and illogical.
You seem totally unable to understand anything about samples.
Phil Da Lick!
> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickRE...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_t...@spammerskissmyarse.hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Hadron Quacked off this little classic:
>>>>> Once more. Since you seem to be so dense you can not understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> Websites measure the browser and platform.
>>>> Of the hits to *that particular site*
>>> Which part of OS independence or non reliance do you not understand? You
>>> think readers of the BBC are unlikely to use Linux too?
>> Which part of "making broad sweeping statements based upon evidence
>> from one source (a source which doesn't fully support all possible
>> alternatives) is pretty fucking stupid and pointless" do you not
>> understand?
>>
>> It's about as valid as the 3.6% reported by the w3school site somebody
>> mentioned here the other day. i.e. not at fucking all.
>
> Definitely High Plains Hypocrite. Totally clueless and illogical.
Right back at ya. I am not HPT no matter what you say.
> You seem totally unable to understand anything about samples.
A sample does not encompass the world dipshit. If you knew anything
about statistics you would know that.
Hadron
I know it does not encompass the world. Hence its called a "sample".
But OK, if you really want to think, like, er High Plains Hypocrite,
that Linux is on 15% of desktops then you go ahead little fella.
Phil Da Lick!
> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_t...@spammerskissmyarse.hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickRE...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_t...@spammerskissmyarse.hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hadron Quacked off this little classic:
>>>>>>> Once more. Since you seem to be so dense you can not understand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Websites measure the browser and platform.
>>>>>> Of the hits to *that particular site*
>>>>> Which part of OS independence or non reliance do you not understand? You
>>>>> think readers of the BBC are unlikely to use Linux too?
>>>> Which part of "making broad sweeping statements based upon evidence
>>>> from one source (a source which doesn't fully support all possible
>>>> alternatives) is pretty fucking stupid and pointless" do you not
>>>> understand?
>>>>
>>>> It's about as valid as the 3.6% reported by the w3school site somebody
>>>> mentioned here the other day. i.e. not at fucking all.
>>> Definitely High Plains Hypocrite. Totally clueless and illogical.
>> Right back at ya. I am not HPT no matter what you say.
>>
>>
>>> You seem totally unable to understand anything about samples.
>> A sample does not encompass the world dipshit. If you knew anything
>> about statistics you would know that.
>
> I know it does not encompass the world. Hence its called a "sample".
Yet you trumpet it [bbc's 0.6%] every chance you get as if its one of
the ten commandments.
> But OK, if you really want to think, like, er High Plains Hypocrite,
> that Linux is on 15% of desktops then you go ahead little fella.
>
Please point out anywhere anytime on any fucking group where I say that
Linux has 15% of desktop market share. Hell, I'm pretty sure I haven't
actually made any kind of estimate about Linux market share at all.
Ever. Prove your statement, or better yet stop putting words into others
people's mouths to satisfy your trolling needs.
Psyc Geek
>Try unlimited.teranews.com at port 119 (only allows 1 connection per user).
What does that mean? I called my grand ma, and she has no clue.
Hadron
Because I trust them not to lie. It corresponds with my own experiences too.
>
>
>> But OK, if you really want to think, like, er High Plains Hypocrite,
>> that Linux is on 15% of desktops then you go ahead little fella.
>>
>
> Please point out anywhere anytime on any fucking group where I say
> that Linux has 15% of desktop market share. Hell, I'm pretty sure I
> haven't actually made any kind of estimate about Linux market share at
> all. Ever. Prove your statement, or better yet stop putting words into
> others people's mouths to satisfy your trolling needs.
I said "if you want". But 0.6 or 0.8 its all pretty much the same to
me. It is not however more than 1%. Not a chance in hell.
--
"For example, user interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software.
I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial
company..." Linus Torvalds <http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html>
Phil Da Lick!
>>>>> You seem totally unable to understand anything about samples.
>>>> A sample does not encompass the world dipshit. If you knew anything
>>>> about statistics you would know that.
>>> I know it does not encompass the world. Hence its called a "sample".
>> Yet you trumpet it [bbc's 0.6%] every chance you get as if its one of
>> the ten commandments.
>
> Because I trust them not to lie. It corresponds with my own experiences too.
Yet it is still just a sample and not an accurate picture of the overall
marketplace so stop pretending otherwise. Do you trust the w3school
website not to lie? Their figure is higher but is still just a sample. A
meaningless sample, just like the rest of them.
>>
>>> But OK, if you really want to think, like, er High Plains Hypocrite,
>>> that Linux is on 15% of desktops then you go ahead little fella.
>>>
>> Please point out anywhere anytime on any fucking group where I say
>> that Linux has 15% of desktop market share. Hell, I'm pretty sure I
>> haven't actually made any kind of estimate about Linux market share at
>> all. Ever. Prove your statement, or better yet stop putting words into
>> others people's mouths to satisfy your trolling needs.
>
> I said "if you want". But 0.6 or 0.8 its all pretty much the same to
> me. It is not however more than 1%. Not a chance in hell.
Spoken like a "True Linux Advocate".
Most linux advocates though would put it somewhere around "who fucking
cares"?
Hadron
> Hadron wrote:
>>>>>> You seem totally unable to understand anything about samples.
>>>>> A sample does not encompass the world dipshit. If you knew anything
>>>>> about statistics you would know that.
>>>> I know it does not encompass the world. Hence its called a "sample".
>>> Yet you trumpet it [bbc's 0.6%] every chance you get as if its one of
>>> the ten commandments.
>>
>> Because I trust them not to lie. It corresponds with my own experiences too.
>
> Yet it is still just a sample and not an accurate picture of the
Err, yes. It is just a sample. A sample. Get it? A *sample*. Look up
what a sample is.
> overall marketplace so stop pretending otherwise. Do you trust the
No it's not totally accurate. It's a sample. What confuses you here.
> w3school website not to lie? Their figure is higher but is still just
> a sample. A meaningless sample, just like the rest of them.
Um no. A meaningful sample. Im this case we see that a higher % of Linux
users access w3schools than, say, the BBC. This is common sense. Linux
users tend to more techy than the average Windows user. What confuses
you here?
>
>
>>>
>>>> But OK, if you really want to think, like, er High Plains Hypocrite,
>>>> that Linux is on 15% of desktops then you go ahead little fella.
>>>>
>>> Please point out anywhere anytime on any fucking group where I say
>>> that Linux has 15% of desktop market share. Hell, I'm pretty sure I
>>> haven't actually made any kind of estimate about Linux market share at
>>> all. Ever. Prove your statement, or better yet stop putting words into
>>> others people's mouths to satisfy your trolling needs.
>>
>> I said "if you want". But 0.6 or 0.8 its all pretty much the same to
>> me. It is not however more than 1%. Not a chance in hell.
>
>
> Spoken like a "True Linux Advocate".
>
> Most linux advocates though would put it somewhere around "who fucking
> cares"?
Erm no. Most Linux "advocates" in COLA keep telling lies and claiming
massive %s which are simply not possible.
--
"Well we know Quack is an inveterate liar & troll with no credibility, so
you cannot take *anything* he says as being true."
-- William Poaster showing his love for Hadron despite claiming never to read his posts in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Phil Da Lick!
>>> Because I trust them not to lie. It corresponds with my own experiences too.
>> Yet it is still just a sample and not an accurate picture of the
>
> Err, yes. It is just a sample. A sample. Get it? A *sample*. Look up
> what a sample is.
"linux market share is 0.6% because the bbc says so"
"it's just a sample"
Hadron
Erm, around 0.6%: We can call it 0.8% if it helps you.
>
> "it's just a sample"
Yes. It is a sample. Since not every person in the world uses the BBC
site. Are you still confused as to what a sample is?
Phil Da Lick!
> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickRE...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>> Because I trust them not to lie. It corresponds with my own experiences too.
>>>> Yet it is still just a sample and not an accurate picture of the
>>> Err, yes. It is just a sample. A sample. Get it? A *sample*. Look up
>>> what a sample is.
>>
>> "linux market share is 0.6% because the bbc says so"
>
> Erm, around 0.6%: We can call it 0.8% if it helps you.
Call it whatever the hell you like. It's meaningless. A "True Linux
Advocate" would know that.
DFS
It's meaningless because you're a dense moron.
Hadron
How is a number which tells you what % of people that visit your website
use a certain OS meaningless? You know, I really am beginning to think
you ARE that stupid. Hint : you try to optimise your sites for the
majority. If you can do so while including the minority all the better.
Hadron
I'm actually quite shocked at how thick this guy appears to be. It
*must* be High Plains Hypocrite because only he has shown such stupidity
in the face of facts.
--
"<larsl> Are there any decent document editors that can open ODT files except
OpenOffice.org? oowriter is so unstable with large files that it would
be funny if I didn't need to get this finished."
Phil Da Lick!
Because, shit for brains, a number that tells you what % of people that
visit your website tells that and exaclty that. It doesn't tell you how
many people are in the world, what colour they are, whether they like
sudoku, what car they drive etc etc. Generalising a market by examining
one particular segment is inherently flawed. A first year statistician
could tell you that.
Phil Da Lick!
Spake DooFus, wintroll and tosspot by royal decree. Go shout your
meaningless stats if it makes you happy or puts a meal on your table.
They dont mean shit. Of course, if you *could* quantify the total linux
market share accurately I'm sure we'd be interested. But you can't. Get
over it. You're just mouthing opinions or incredibly small sample data.
Phil Da Lick!
> "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> writes:
>
>> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickRE...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>>>>> Because I trust them not to lie. It corresponds with my own
>>>>>>>> experiences too.
>>>>>>> Yet it is still just a sample and not an accurate picture of the
>>>>>> Err, yes. It is just a sample. A sample. Get it? A *sample*. Look
>>>>>> up what a sample is.
>>>>> "linux market share is 0.6% because the bbc says so"
>>>> Erm, around 0.6%: We can call it 0.8% if it helps you.
>>> Call it whatever the hell you like. It's meaningless. A "True Linux
>>> Advocate" would know that.
>> It's meaningless because you're a dense moron.
>
> I'm actually quite shocked at how thick this guy appears to be. It
> *must* be High Plains Hypocrite because only he has shown such stupidity
> in the face of facts.
>
Remind us why you're here again "True Linux Advocate".
Hadron
> Hadron wrote:
>> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickRE...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickRE...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>>>>> Because I trust them not to lie. It corresponds with my own experiences too.
>>>>>>> Yet it is still just a sample and not an accurate picture of the
>>>>>> Err, yes. It is just a sample. A sample. Get it? A *sample*. Look up
>>>>>> what a sample is.
>>>>> "linux market share is 0.6% because the bbc says so"
>>>> Erm, around 0.6%: We can call it 0.8% if it helps you.
>>> Call it whatever the hell you like. It's meaningless. A "True Linux
>>> Advocate" would know that.
>>>
>>
>> How is a number which tells you what % of people that visit your website
>> use a certain OS meaningless? You know, I really am beginning to think
>> you ARE that stupid. Hint : you try to optimise your sites for the
>> majority. If you can do so while including the minority all the better.
>
> Because, shit for brains, a number that tells you what % of people
> that visit your website tells that and exaclty that.
err, 100% of people who visit your web site visit your web site. I think
you forgot the browser/OS bit.
> It doesn't tell
> you how many people are in the world, what colour they are, whether
> they like sudoku, what car they drive etc etc. Generalising a market
> by examining one particular segment is inherently flawed. A first year
> statistician could tell you that.
Who said they did?
But you do now agree it can tell approximately what % of visitors use
which OS? Good. We're getting somewhere.
I dont know why you tried erecting such a crap straw man. No one
mentioned anything other than the one particular segment we were
discussing : namely % of visitors who use Linux.
But you agree now that it can indeed do that. That's a relief.
--
"By your and your buddies references, marketshare.hitslink.com, it has
moved from .43 to .68 over the last year. Increasing by 58% over the last
year doesn't seem to me like it hasn't changed much in 16 years."
-- Rick <no...@nomail.com> in comp.os.linux.advocacy
William Poaster
Quack's more stupid than ever.
--
The little scamps! It's the oldest trick in the book: capture your ship,
turn it into a planet, then explore a macro universe in a laundry basket.
How could you fall for an old scam like that?
--Holly, Nanarchy - Red Dwarf--
Phil Da Lick!
> But you do now agree it can tell approximately what % of visitors use
> which OS? Good. We're getting somewhere.
>
> I dont know why you tried erecting such a crap straw man. No one
> mentioned anything other than the one particular segment we were
> discussing : namely % of visitors who use Linux.
>
> But you agree now that it can indeed do that. That's a relief.
It wouldnt be such a bone of contention if you wouldnt use these figures
to justify your position on linux market share because they just dont.
They back up linux market share /to that particular site during that
particular period/.
From now on when somebody asks what market share linux has dont answer
"0.6%", instead answer "0.6% of the visitors to the bbc's site use linux".
This would be accurate and a correct use of /a data sample/.
However it wouldnt help your trolling. Oh dear.
Hadron
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> But you do now agree it can tell approximately what % of visitors use
>> which OS? Good. We're getting somewhere.
>>
>> I dont know why you tried erecting such a crap straw man. No one
>> mentioned anything other than the one particular segment we were
>> discussing : namely % of visitors who use Linux.
>>
>> But you agree now that it can indeed do that. That's a relief.
>
>
> It wouldnt be such a bone of contention if you wouldnt use these
> figures to justify your position on linux market share because they
> just dont. They back up linux market share /to that particular site
> during that particular period/.
Yes. It's a sample. We discussed this and I explained it to you. Have
you forgotten already? A *sample*. But this sample was taken over a
long period of time on a site which is not more attractive to one OS
user than other. So a quite reliable sample.
>
> From now on when somebody asks what market share linux has dont answer
> "0.6%", instead answer "0.6% of the visitors to the bbc's site use
> linux".
I dont answer 0.6%. I say about 0.6 or 0.7% usually. Why? Because I
trust that sample.
I think you're almost getting it now.
--
"Its obvious Micoshaft sponsored frauds and net stalkers are now attacking individuals directly in organised gangs in linux advocacy newsgroups as predicted since it is known micoshaft is failing in the market place."
7, COLA Linux "advocate" and nutjob.
Phil Da Lick!
>> From now on when somebody asks what market share linux has dont answer
>> "0.6%", instead answer "0.6% of the visitors to the bbc's site use
>> linux".
>
> I dont answer 0.6%. I say about 0.6 or 0.7% usually. Why? Because I
> trust that sample.
That doesn't make it accurate. "Trusting" one sample is fundamentally
wrong from a stats point of view. Your numbers are therefore unreliable
at best.
Hadron
I know its not accurate. But its accurate enough. I can think of no
better site.
It also corresponds with my real life observations.
Why me believing a competent, non biased site like the BBC upsets you so
much is anyones guess. I just you just do not like the numbers. I don't
either fwiw. I also wish flash would not crash so often on my debian
lenny setup with iceweasel 3. But so is life.
Phil Da Lick!
Fuck me!
#1: ANYONE ANYWHERE who describes the BBC as "unbiased" has totally and
utterly fucking lost it. They are well known in the UK for being so far
up Labour's arse its untrue. Its a left-wing propoganda machine and has
been for years.
#2: ANYONE ANYWHERE who describes the BBC as "competent" has also no
clue. They piss tax payers' money up the wall like a drunken sailor.
Their knowledge of tech issues is also virtually nonexistant.
You obviously don't live in the UK. The BBC is a *terrible* organisation
and most public opinion here in the UK is along the lines of cutting
their funding.
Rant over.
Also,
Using one site as an indicator basis for a sweeping generalism on the
size of the desktop IT market was wrong ten posts ago and is still wrong
now. The sample data is not braod enough. And that would be true whether
the site is the bbc, the WSJ, whoever.
Hadron
> Hadron wrote:
>> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickRE...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>> From now on when somebody asks what market share linux has dont answer
>>>>> "0.6%", instead answer "0.6% of the visitors to the bbc's site use
>>>>> linux".
>>>> I dont answer 0.6%. I say about 0.6 or 0.7% usually. Why? Because I
>>>> trust that sample.
>>> That doesn't make it accurate. "Trusting" one sample is fundamentally
>>> wrong from a stats point of view. Your numbers are therefore
>>> unreliable at best.
>>
>> I know its not accurate. But its accurate enough. I can think of no
>> better site.
>>
>> It also corresponds with my real life observations.
>>
>> Why me believing a competent, non biased site like the BBC upsets you so
>> much is anyones guess. I just you just do not like the numbers. I don't
>> either fwiw. I also wish flash would not crash so often on my debian
>> lenny setup with iceweasel 3. But so is life.
>
> Fuck me!
>
> #1: ANYONE ANYWHERE who describes the BBC as "unbiased" has totally
> and utterly fucking lost it. They are well known in the UK for being
> so far up Labour's arse its untrue. Its a left-wing propoganda machine
> and has been for years.
And this has to do with what OS people use how exactly?
You have lost the plot old son.
Now maybe you know what I meant be "bias" in this context. Do try to
keep up.
Phil Da Lick!
Nice deflect. Not. Keep spouting your 0.6%. Its about as valid as 3.6%.
Or any other stat from one site.
chrisv
>>
>> Which part of
Which part of "eat shit and die" do you not understand, Quack?
Hadron
Deflection from what? I'm trying to bring it back to what we were
discussing - what % of users visiting this site use Linux. Why you think
the BBCs views of the Labour party have anything to do with it is, well,
quite worrying.
Phil Da Lick!
> discussing - what % of users visiting this site use Linux. Why you think
> the BBCs views of the Labour party have anything to do with it is, well,
> quite worrying.
That you asserted that the bbc was "unbiased" was even more worrying.
William Poaster
As I said, an *English* speaking site. Linux distros are produced in a
great number of languages other than English.
There was a report not long ago, of 55 million pupils in Brazil now using
linux, many of them may not even *speak* English, so wouldn't even bother
with the BBC website.
Or how about Chinese, where it's estimated that 12% now use some form of
linux (mainly thanks to M$ antipiracy policy), & many of whom *may* not
speak English & (again) wouldn't bother with the BBC website?
It's estimmated, BTW, that in 2008 an estimated estimated 6 million
computers that will be sold in China's rural areas providing a big stage
for Linux desktop software. How many of those rural Chinese will be able
to speak English, & log onto the BBC's website? Probably about as many as
a Glawegian road sweeper logging onto this: http://www.bjd.com.cn/
And so on, & so on.....
So website stats don't mean zip. They are *only* valid for the people who
visit it & speak *that* language.
Ezekiel
"Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickRE...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:VN-dnb6BEdDoA_bV...@posted.plusnet...
I think that "unbiased" in this conext was that they have no dog in this
fight and unlike Microsoft or Redhat, they don't have a bias towards skewing
their OS browser stats.
Whether the 0.6% or 0.8% or 3% figure is right or now, nobody here knows.
All we have is the data that's reported. But *accurate* as in "very
accurate" figures are available to those willing to pay the price. Is there
anyone here that doesn't believe that senior people at Microsoft, Dell, HP,
IBM, etc don't have very accurate estimates of linux usage?
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Phil Da Lick!
*noticing your .sig*
Wikipedia and reddwarf.co.uk are now basically saying that RD is dead.
No movie, no further series. Nowt.
Black armband anyone?
Why they (the BBC) ditched RD and replaced it with pissing Hyperdrive
just shows what a bunch of clueless incompetent fuckwits the BBC are.
Hyperdrive was just NOT FUNNY.
Phil Da Lick!
> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickRE...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:VN-dnb6BEdDoA_bV...@posted.plusnet...
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> discussing - what % of users visiting this site use Linux. Why you think
>>> the BBCs views of the Labour party have anything to do with it is, well,
>>> quite worrying.
>> That you asserted that the bbc was "unbiased" was even more worrying.
>>
>
> I think that "unbiased" in this conext was that they have no dog in this
> fight and unlike Microsoft or Redhat, they don't have a bias towards skewing
> their OS browser stats.
Maybe. They're almost a govt controlled agency and Tony Blair spent a
lot of time up Bill Gates' backside a few years back to negotiate
coupons for the NHS et al.
> Whether the 0.6% or 0.8% or 3% figure is right or now, nobody here knows.
Thank you. That's exactly the pissing point everyone here but Quack
understands quite well. Go and drum it into his head FFS.
> All we have is the data that's reported. But *accurate* as in "very
> accurate" figures are available to those willing to pay the price. Is there
> anyone here that doesn't believe that senior people at Microsoft, Dell, HP,
> IBM, etc don't have very accurate estimates of linux usage?
Well, I bet their figures are based on a much larger sample of data, and
probably more accurate but totally accurate? No, I don't believe so. The
very nature of the distribution web negates the possibility.
Hadron
Seriously, are you retarded? Clearly I meant in the context of reporting
which % of users use which OS. Why is this so hard for you to
comprehend?
Your strawman is as unstable as you appear to be when confronted with
facts.
--
If you take both of those factors together then WinXP is a flop, selling
*less* than Win 98 by a factor of two.
comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they the lunacy in advocacy
Moshe Goldfarb.
It's sad watching HPT go down the drain, one brain cell at a time......
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Hadron
> Ezekiel wrote:
>> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickRE...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> in message news:VN-dnb6BEdDoA_bV...@posted.plusnet...
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>> discussing - what % of users visiting this site use Linux. Why you think
>>>> the BBCs views of the Labour party have anything to do with it is, well,
>>>> quite worrying.
>>> That you asserted that the bbc was "unbiased" was even more worrying.
>>>
>>
>> I think that "unbiased" in this conext was that they have no dog in
>> this fight and unlike Microsoft or Redhat, they don't have a bias
>> towards skewing their OS browser stats.
>
> Maybe. They're almost a govt controlled agency and Tony Blair spent a
> lot of time up Bill Gates' backside a few years back to negotiate
> coupons for the NHS et al.
>
>
>> Whether the 0.6% or 0.8% or 3% figure is right or now, nobody here
>> knows.
>
> Thank you. That's exactly the pissing point everyone here but Quack
> understands quite well. Go and drum it into his head FFS.
Huh? What ARE you talking about? I know they are not "exact". But they
are a sample and are indicative. For that site. What is so complicated
for to grasp here?
High Plains Thumper
> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
>> Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>> #1: ANYONE ANYWHERE who describes the BBC as "unbiased"
>>>> has totally and utterly fucking lost it. They are well
>>>> known in the UK for being so far up Labour's arse its
>>>> untrue. Its a left-wing propoganda machine and has been
>>>> for years.
>>>
>>> And this has to do with what OS people use how exactly?
>>> You have lost the plot old son. Now maybe you know what I
>>> meant be "bias" in this context. Do try to keep up.
>>
>> Nice deflect. Not. Keep spouting your 0.6%. Its about as
>> valid as 3.6%. Or any other stat from one site.
>
> As I said, an *English* speaking site. Linux distros are
> produced in a great number of languages other than English.
>
> There was a report not long ago, of 55 million pupils in
> Brazil now using linux, many of them may not even *speak*
> English, so wouldn't even bother with the BBC website.
>
> Or how about Chinese, where it's estimated that 12% now use
> some form of linux (mainly thanks to M$ antipiracy policy), &
> many of whom *may* not speak English & (again) wouldn't bother
> estimated estimated 6 million computers that will be sold in
> China's rural areas providing a big stage for Linux desktop
> software. How many of those rural Chinese will be able to
> speak English, & log onto the BBC's website? Probably about as
> many as a Glawegian road sweeper logging onto this:
> http://www.bjd.com.cn/
>
> And so on, & so on.....
>
> So website stats don't mean zip. They are *only* valid for the
> people who visit it & speak *that* language.
Well put. Linux has considerable worldwide presence outside the
US. Hadron supports the trolls with their failed logic, which
goes to show that he is not a serious Linux user and is only here
to denigrate Linux advocacy.
As Linux grows by leaps and bounds, the trolls keep singing their
mantra that it remains at under 1%, that Microsoft is not a
monopoly, that Microsoft makes the best products, that "how dare
you criticise Microsoft's home grown goodness" (DFS), that the EU
is inconsiderate and unfair with their judgments, that the more
than adequate KDE (among others) desktops are inadequate, and ad
nauseum.
Flatfish continues his dyslexic, schizophrenic arguments that
Linux never has worked out of the box, defying its tremendous
growth and deployment.
They are all in a state of denial.
--
HPT
Phil Da Lick!
> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickRE...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> discussing - what % of users visiting this site use Linux. Why you think
>>> the BBCs views of the Labour party have anything to do with it is, well,
>>> quite worrying.
>> That you asserted that the bbc was "unbiased" was even more worrying.
>>
>
> Seriously, are you retarded? Clearly I meant in the context of reporting
> which % of users use which OS. Why is this so hard for you to
> comprehend?
Clearly you did not. Clearly you are postulating linux market share
based upon results from one website. By your own admission earlier in
this thread you estimate it as "between 0.6% and 0.7%" when asked based
upon usage data from the bbc which you "trust that sample" as indicative
of the market as a whole.
> Your strawman is as unstable as you appear to be when confronted with
> facts.
Bah, you're the only one in this thread building straw men.
Hadron
Oh dear me. Willy doesn't understand what a sample is either.
Hadron
> Hadron wrote:
>> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickRE...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>> discussing - what % of users visiting this site use Linux. Why you think
>>>> the BBCs views of the Labour party have anything to do with it is, well,
>>>> quite worrying.
>>> That you asserted that the bbc was "unbiased" was even more worrying.
>>>
>>
>> Seriously, are you retarded? Clearly I meant in the context of reporting
>> which % of users use which OS. Why is this so hard for you to
>> comprehend?
>
> Clearly you did not. Clearly you are postulating linux market share
> based upon results from one website. By your own admission earlier in
Correct. From one OS neutral website. using a sample. Still with me. AND
my own experiences in the real world.
>> Your strawman is as unstable as you appear to be when confronted with
>> facts.
>
>
> Bah, you're the only one in this thread building straw men.
Um no. Maybe you do not know what one is? YOU started waffling on about
the BBC and the Labour party. I tried to keep it to the stats which are
our sample.
--
"<larsl> Are there any decent document editors that can open ODT files except
OpenOffice.org? oowriter is so unstable with large files that it would
be funny if I didn't need to get this finished."
High Plains Thumper
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Deflection from what? I'm trying to bring it back to what we
>> were discussing - what % of users visiting this site use
>> Linux. Why you think the BBCs views of the Labour party have
>> anything to do with it is, well, quite worrying.
>
> It's sad watching HPT go down the drain, one brain cell at a
> time......
Phhhhbbbbbfffft! LOLROTF! Had a mouth full of coffee, now need
to wipe the spray off my monitor.
I can't believe I am viewing this schizophrenic circus!
Phil Da Lick! is HPT?
You all are a riot, really. You all can't be that stupid. OTOH
mebbe I was wrong, you all really are.
--
HPT
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and
I'm not sure about the universe. Albert Einstein
Ezekiel
> Ezekiel wrote:
>> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickRE...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> message news:VN-dnb6BEdDoA_bV...@posted.plusnet...
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>> discussing - what % of users visiting this site use Linux. Why you
>>>> think
>>>> the BBCs views of the Labour party have anything to do with it is,
>>>> well,
>>>> quite worrying.
>>> That you asserted that the bbc was "unbiased" was even more worrying.
>>>
>>
>> I think that "unbiased" in this conext was that they have no dog in this
>> fight and unlike Microsoft or Redhat, they don't have a bias towards
>> skewing their OS browser stats.
>
> Maybe. They're almost a govt controlled agency and Tony Blair spent a lot
> of time up Bill Gates' backside a few years back to negotiate coupons for
> the NHS et al.
I think that Gates met with lots of world leaders and Blair was one of them.
But when these guys meet it's going to be over these 'high level' vague
conceptual things. I can't imagine the two of them meeting so that Gates
could convice Blair to have him pressure the people working at the BBC to
release skewed browser stats. I would expect higher quality corruption that
that from Gates :)
>
>> Whether the 0.6% or 0.8% or 3% figure is right or now, nobody here knows.
>
> Thank you. That's exactly the pissing point everyone here but Quack
> understands quite well. Go and drum it into his head FFS.
They are just stats and they are likely to be very accurate for those
websites that were included in the measurement. How well the stats do or
don't reflect the bigger world view of things is debatable. But the numbers
that were reported are accurate... but only for the site(s) that were
included in the stats.
>> All we have is the data that's reported. But *accurate* as in "very
>> accurate" figures are available to those willing to pay the price. Is
>> there anyone here that doesn't believe that senior people at Microsoft,
>> Dell, HP, IBM, etc don't have very accurate estimates of linux usage?
>
> Well, I bet their figures are based on a much larger sample of data, and
> probably more accurate but totally accurate? No, I don't believe so. The
> very nature of the distribution web negates the possibility.
There are several hundreds of billions of $$$ on the line so even if these
guys have to spend a few million to get accurate stats it's worth it to
them. Try hard enough and you can get accurate stats on anything. OS usage
(I'm sure they keep their eye on the Mac) is an easy concept to understand
andis completely objective. It's not one of these subjective 'How do you
feel about ....' kinda things.
Survey enough people, sample enough traffic (web, email, p2p, etc) on the
major internet backbones and smart people will be able to come up with a
good model of what parts of the world are running what OS and the
trend/direction things are going.
William Poaster
> William Poaster wrote:
>
> *noticing your .sig*
>
> Wikipedia and reddwarf.co.uk are now basically saying that RD is dead. No
> movie, no further series. Nowt.
>
> Black armband anyone?
>
Yes, it's a damn shame.
> Why they (the BBC) ditched RD and replaced it with pissing Hyperdrive just
> shows what a bunch of clueless incompetent fuckwits the BBC are.
>
> Hyperdrive was just NOT FUNNY.
It was *tripe*. Should have been on Children's hour, though I doubt even
kids would have found it funny.
--
This is a recording. I'm afraid Holly is busy at the moment.
If you'd like to leave a message after the bleep,
he'll get back to you. Bleep.
--Holly - Red Dwarf--
chrisv
>Quack snotted:
>>
>> It is not however more than 1%. Not a chance in hell.
>
>Spoken like a "True Linux Advocate".
>
>Most linux advocates though would put it somewhere around "who fucking
>cares"?
Exactly. The Quack fsckwit, like other worthless trolls, just *loves*
to argue over market share. Who gives a rat's ass what the exact
share is?
chrisv
>Clearly you did not.
For Christ's sake, man. Quit feeding that fscking idiot Quack.
You're never going to "win".
Gregory Shearman
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> But OK, if you really want to think, like, er High Plains Hypocrite,
>> that Linux is on 15% of desktops then you go ahead little fella.
>>
>
> Please point out anywhere anytime on any fucking group where I say that
> Linux has 15% of desktop market share. Hell, I'm pretty sure I haven't
> actually made any kind of estimate about Linux market share at all.
> Ever. Prove your statement, or better yet stop putting words into others
> people's mouths to satisfy your trolling needs.
If I were you I'd killfile it. Don't get angry, get even.
The Insane Quark Troll lives on the tidbits you feed it.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
Hadron
So High Plains Hypocrite is insane for thinking this?
LOL. The .sig just gets funnier....
--
"Maybe he knows where the body is because he saw where
it was put." -- "Rick" defending Hans Reiser (his hero) in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Gregory Shearman
> Ezekiel wrote:
>>>
>>
>> I think that "unbiased" in this conext was that they have no dog in this
>> fight and unlike Microsoft or Redhat, they don't have a bias towards skewing
>> their OS browser stats.
>
> Maybe. They're almost a govt controlled agency and Tony Blair spent a
> lot of time up Bill Gates' backside a few years back to negotiate
> coupons for the NHS et al.
>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5390000.stm
The BBC has signed an agreement with Microsoft to explore ways of
developing its digital services.
The non-exclusive memorandum of understanding sets out a framework for
joint projects between the two organisations.
This includes plans for next-generation web 2.0 and ways to share online
content in the future.
BBC director general Mark Thompson said there had been unprecedented
rates of change in technology.
He said: "To ensure that the BBC is able to embrace the creative
challenges of the digital future, we need to forge strategic
partnerships with technology companies and distributors for the benefit
of licence payers."
======================================================================
BBC unbiased???
Sure.....
Phil Da Lick!
> Correct. From one OS neutral website. using a sample. Still with me. AND
> my own experiences in the real world.
Your "experiences in the real world" don't affect market share at all
I'm afraid.
And the BBC is not an OS Neutral site.
Phil Da Lick!
>> Why they (the BBC) ditched RD and replaced it with pissing Hyperdrive just
>> shows what a bunch of clueless incompetent fuckwits the BBC are.
>>
>> Hyperdrive was just NOT FUNNY.
>
> It was *tripe*. Should have been on Children's hour, though I doubt even
> kids would have found it funny.
Doubt it!
Nick Frost seems to be one of the beeb's favs at the moment, and
therefore everywhere. Not quite as bad as barrowman though.
Hadron
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Correct. From one OS neutral website. using a sample. Still with me. AND
>> my own experiences in the real world.
>
> Your "experiences in the real world" don't affect market share at all
> I'm afraid.
I never said they did. My experiences RELATE the natural order. You
appear incapable of rational thought.
>
> And the BBC is not an OS Neutral site.
It is as far as casual browsing was.
--
"His asshole is so reamed out he has room for an oxygen
tank, too."
-- Tattoo Vampire loooking for new accomodation in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Phil Da Lick!
> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickRE...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> Correct. From one OS neutral website. using a sample. Still with me. AND
>>> my own experiences in the real world.
>> Your "experiences in the real world" don't affect market share at all
>> I'm afraid.
>
ROFL!
So, you see yourself as a "facilitator"?
Hadron
Huh? What ARE you talking about.
The experiences I have relate to me that the Linux uptake on desktops is
very low. Simple as that.
--
"Let the body stay buried wherever he put it, maybe it'll get
found some day, maybe not. "
-- "Bo Raxo" <crimene...@gmail.com> in alt.true-crime, comp.os.linux.advocacy
Phil Da Lick!
> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickRE...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickRE...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Correct. From one OS neutral website. using a sample. Still with me. AND
>>>>> my own experiences in the real world.
>>>> Your "experiences in the real world" don't affect market share at all
>>>> I'm afraid.
>>> My experiences RELATE the natural order.
>>
>> ROFL!
>>
>> So, you see yourself as a "facilitator"?
>
> Huh? What ARE you talking about.
>
> The experiences I have relate to me that the Linux uptake on desktops is
> very low. Simple as that.
And a few hundred years ago the world was flat.
Hadron
Well, I take me hat off to you. You're simply mad.
--
- "Thats what I have been saying for 5 years. Consumers are tired, they
want something new and more exciting."
comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy
Phil Da Lick!
> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickRE...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickRE...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickRE...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Correct. From one OS neutral website. using a sample. Still with me. AND
>>>>>>> my own experiences in the real world.
>>>>>> Your "experiences in the real world" don't affect market share at all
>>>>>> I'm afraid.
>>>>> My experiences RELATE the natural order.
>>>> ROFL!
>>>>
>>>> So, you see yourself as a "facilitator"?
>>> Huh? What ARE you talking about.
>>>
>>> The experiences I have relate to me that the Linux uptake on desktops is
>>> very low. Simple as that.
>>
>> And a few hundred years ago the world was flat.
>
> Well, I take me hat off to you. You're simply mad.
>
The problem is that you are simply unable to understand a very simple
fact: assumptions made on very small sample data lead to inaccurate
conclusions. Go ahead and believe that worldwide linux desktop share is
0.6% because sample data of the BBC and your "own experiences" seems to
indicate it. You're simply wrong. Just like everyone who believed the
world was flat - until they got a bigger sample of data and were proven
wrong.
Hadron
> Hadron wrote:
>> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickRE...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickRE...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>>> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickRE...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Correct. From one OS neutral website. using a sample. Still with me. AND
>>>>>>>> my own experiences in the real world.
>>>>>>> Your "experiences in the real world" don't affect market share at all
>>>>>>> I'm afraid.
>>>>>> My experiences RELATE the natural order.
>>>>> ROFL!
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you see yourself as a "facilitator"?
>>>> Huh? What ARE you talking about.
>>>>
>>>> The experiences I have relate to me that the Linux uptake on desktops is
>>>> very low. Simple as that.
>>>
>>> And a few hundred years ago the world was flat.
>>
>> Well, I take me hat off to you. You're simply mad.
>>
>
> The problem is that you are simply unable to understand a very simple
> fact: assumptions made on very small sample data lead to inaccurate
I agree. On small data sets.
> conclusions. Go ahead and believe that worldwide linux desktop share
> is 0.6% because sample data of the BBC and your "own experiences"
> seems to indicate it. You're simply wrong. Just like everyone who
Yet you seem unable to prove I am wrong. An OS "neutral" survey put it
at this figure. My own eyes tell me this to be about right. And all you
can do is say "wrong". You're a zealot and a stupid one at that. I tire
of this. You provide nothing but your hope.
William Poaster
Quack is wrong, but too stupid to admit it. I've already given reasons why
the BBC is, & *can* be, only a tiny sample. Still if the troll wishes to
live in it's own little world, so be it.
--
You just cannot educate
the willfully clueless.
Phil Da Lick!
You are fucking nuts Quack. You admit in this thread its a small data
set but then go on to ask I prove you wrong because it agrees with what
you think? You prove it right worldwide. It's small data set. It can't
be proven right or wrong in any other way than by a huge data set. Just
because you agree with it doesn't make it right. Bang them braincells
together and join the dots.
Hadron
I did not agree it was a small data set. I agreed that a small data set
would be less reliable.
I also agree the larger the sample the better the results.
> what you think? You prove it right worldwide. It's small data set. It
> can't be proven right or wrong in any other way than by a huge data
> set. Just because you agree with it doesn't make it right. Bang them
> braincells together and join the dots.
You're a fool.
Phil Da Lick!
> I did not agree it was a small data set. I agreed that a small data set
> would be less reliable.
>
> I also agree the larger the sample the better the results.
Yet the bbc's webstats seem to be enough to prove something in that
small brain of yours.
Hadron
Err yes. That 0.6% of a lot of people accessing OS neutral news use
Linux.
--
If you take both of those factors together then WinXP is a flop, selling
*less* than Win 98 by a factor of two.
comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they the lunacy in advocacy
Phil Da Lick!
> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickRE...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> I did not agree it was a small data set. I agreed that a small data set
>>> would be less reliable.
>>>
>>> I also agree the larger the sample the better the results.
>> Yet the bbc's webstats seem to be enough to prove something in that
>> small brain of yours.
>
> Err yes. That 0.6% of a lot of people accessing OS neutral news use
> Linux.
>
have you got an ip adress for that very small corner of totality?
chrisv
>>
>> The experiences I have relate to me that the Linux uptake on desktops is
>> very low. Simple as that.
Good. That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Since "very low"
is a subjective term, you're not even "wrong".
Now fsck off with you trolling, you useless waste of skin.
Hadron
>> Hadron quacked:
>>>
>>> The experiences I have relate to me that the Linux uptake on desktops is
>>> very low. Simple as that.
>
> Good. That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Since "very low"
> is a subjective term, you're not even "wrong".
>
But not "subjective" when combined with 0.6.
> Now fsck off with you trolling, you useless waste of skin.
>
More wonderful contribution to a debate by the "real" chrisv.
--
It explains a lot. I've not heard of anyone I know, anywhere, buying XP,
and I've not seen it sold whilst I've been in any shops.