Desktop Linux users may exceed 10% of all internet users

[7]

Desktop Linux users may exceed 10% of all internet users
-------------------------------------------------------

There are at least 160 million distinct Linux Desktop users.
Some 1 to 2 billion PCs and that gives Linux Desktop
a market share of between 8% to 16%.

Distrowatch records around 2100 hits for Ubuntu which has
20 million users. Taking the top 30 distros would translate
to around 25,000 hits which would project to around 200 million users
which is backed up by a known minimum of 160 million distinct
Linux Desktop users.
Some 1 to 2 billion PCs out there in active use and that would
put Linux market share between 10% to 20%.

All of these different ways of measuring Desktop Linux is pointing
to 1 in 10 PCs running Desktop Linux and way above the 7% needed
to declare Linux a mainstream Desktop OS.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, 7 belched this bit o' wisdom:

I'm doubtful. My segment of usage, in the Southeast U.S., doesn't seem
to me to be even at 1%, although, there may be many Linux users that I
just haven't met, or haven't had the subject come up.

--
..sigs must usually be a small end bit for signing off. any more than 3
or 4 lines detracts from the articles main reason I think. Yours, for
example is more heavy than your postings. This is not considered good in
companies I have worked and is usually considered to be showing oneself off.
-- Hans Schneider, AKA "Hadron", http://help.lockergnome.com/linux/wjbellftopic-385547-days0-orderasc-20.html

[Hadron]

LOL!

[Hadron]

Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> writes:

> After swilling some grog, 7 belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Desktop Linux users may exceed 10% of all internet users
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> There are at least 160 million distinct Linux Desktop users.
>> Some 1 to 2 billion PCs and that gives Linux Desktop
>> a market share of between 8% to 16%.
>>
>> Distrowatch records around 2100 hits for Ubuntu which has
>> 20 million users. Taking the top 30 distros would translate
>> to around 25,000 hits which would project to around 200 million users
>> which is backed up by a known minimum of 160 million distinct
>> Linux Desktop users.
>> Some 1 to 2 billion PCs out there in active use and that would
>> put Linux market share between 10% to 20%.
>>
>> All of these different ways of measuring Desktop Linux is pointing
>> to 1 in 10 PCs running Desktop Linux and way above the 7% needed
>> to declare Linux a mainstream Desktop OS.
>
> I'm doubtful.

Doubtful? It was a downright lie and you know it.

> My segment of usage, in the Southeast U.S., doesn't seem
> to me to be even at 1%, although, there may be many Linux users that I
> just haven't met, or haven't had the subject come up.

1% ring any bells? Or maybe MS is hiding everyone from you Creepy.

[DFS]

On 5/6/2012 12:56 PM, 7 wrote:
> Desktop Linux users may exceed 10% of all internet users
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> There are at least 160 million distinct Linux Desktop users.

No, there are not.

> Some 1 to 2 billion PCs and that gives Linux Desktop
> a market share of between 8% to 16%.
>
> Distrowatch records around 2100 hits for Ubuntu which has
> 20 million users. Taking the top 30 distros would translate
> to around 25,000 hits which would project to around 200 million users
> which is backed up by a known minimum of 160 million distinct
> Linux Desktop users.
> Some 1 to 2 billion PCs out there in active use and that would
> put Linux market share between 10% to 20%.
>
> All of these different ways of measuring Desktop Linux is pointing
> to 1 in 10 PCs running Desktop Linux and way above the 7% needed
> to declare Linux a mainstream Desktop OS.

I already showed you how to calculate the approx number of Linux distro
users:


1) 2.27 billion Internet users
http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm


2) Linux share of all OS usage approx. 1.1%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Web_clients
(remove Chitika and w3counter - you understand why, right?)


3) <distro> share of all Linux usage:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportOperatingSystems.htm
(Breakdown per platform for Mac and Linux - remove Mac and Android -
leave all other Linux in)


2.27 billion * 1.1% * <distro share of all Linux> = approx number of
distro users

[bbgruff]

On Sunday 06 May 2012 18:32 Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> After swilling some grog, 7 belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Desktop Linux users may exceed 10% of all internet users
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> There are at least 160 million distinct Linux Desktop users.
>> Some 1 to 2 billion PCs and that gives Linux Desktop
>> a market share of between 8% to 16%.
>>
>> Distrowatch records around 2100 hits for Ubuntu which has
>> 20 million users. Taking the top 30 distros would translate
>> to around 25,000 hits which would project to around 200 million users
>> which is backed up by a known minimum of 160 million distinct
>> Linux Desktop users.
>> Some 1 to 2 billion PCs out there in active use and that would
>> put Linux market share between 10% to 20%.
>>
>> All of these different ways of measuring Desktop Linux is pointing
>> to 1 in 10 PCs running Desktop Linux and way above the 7% needed
>> to declare Linux a mainstream Desktop OS.
>
> I'm doubtful. My segment of usage, in the Southeast U.S., doesn't seem
> to me to be even at 1%, although, there may be many Linux users that I
> just haven't met, or haven't had the subject come up.

I'm sure you are right, and that the answer is "in the order of 1%"

However, do bear in mind that that is "usage" - meaning the % of web
accesses made.
Now IIRC, certain people around here are very fond of telling you and others
that you are also Windows users, that you make your money from Windows, that
you use Windows at work, etc. Correct?

That being the case, and making a fairly reasonable first-order
approximation, doesn't that mean that the number of people *choosing* Linux
"doubles* ?

Do you know what a petard is? :-)

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, bbgruff belched this bit o' wisdom:

> On Sunday 06 May 2012 18:32 Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> After swilling some grog, 7 belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> Desktop Linux users may exceed 10% of all internet users
>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>>

>>> All of these different ways of measuring Desktop Linux is pointing
>>> to 1 in 10 PCs running Desktop Linux and way above the 7% needed
>>> to declare Linux a mainstream Desktop OS.
>>
>> I'm doubtful. My segment of usage, in the Southeast U.S., doesn't seem
>> to me to be even at 1%, although, there may be many Linux users that I
>> just haven't met, or haven't had the subject come up.
>
> I'm sure you are right, and that the answer is "in the order of 1%"
>
> However, do bear in mind that that is "usage" - meaning the % of web
> accesses made.
> Now IIRC, certain people around here are very fond of telling you and others
> that you are also Windows users, that you make your money from Windows, that
> you use Windows at work, etc. Correct?
>
> That being the case, and making a fairly reasonable first-order
> approximation, doesn't that mean that the number of people *choosing* Linux
> "doubles* ?
>
> Do you know what a petard is? :-)

Sure. I also know what Tard-Speak is.

Most people who use Linux also use Windows, sounds reasonable. After
all, you have to scramble pretty hard to get away from the stuff.

--
I admire your tenacity in giving Ahlstrom the benefit of the doubt. But
surely now, despite his attempts at the molly cuddling nice guy persona, you
can be in zero doubt that he rarely, if ever, reads the articles from his
master Roy which he jumps into defend like the yipping little lap dog he has
become.
-- "Hadron". Copied from Google Groups.

[RonB]

On Sun, 06 May 2012 13:32:21 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> I'm doubtful. My segment of usage, in the Southeast U.S., doesn't seem
> to me to be even at 1%, although, there may be many Linux users that I
> just haven't met, or haven't had the subject come up.

The U.S. is not the world, however.

--
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.7 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0
or Linux Mint 10

[7]

bbgruff wrote:

> On Sunday 06 May 2012 18:32 Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> After swilling some grog, 7 belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> Desktop Linux users may exceed 10% of all internet users
>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> There are at least 160 million distinct Linux Desktop users.
>>> Some 1 to 2 billion PCs and that gives Linux Desktop
>>> a market share of between 8% to 16%.
>>>
>>> Distrowatch records around 2100 hits for Ubuntu which has
>>> 20 million users. Taking the top 30 distros would translate
>>> to around 25,000 hits which would project to around 200 million users
>>> which is backed up by a known minimum of 160 million distinct
>>> Linux Desktop users.
>>> Some 1 to 2 billion PCs out there in active use and that would
>>> put Linux market share between 10% to 20%.
>>>
>>> All of these different ways of measuring Desktop Linux is pointing
>>> to 1 in 10 PCs running Desktop Linux and way above the 7% needed
>>> to declare Linux a mainstream Desktop OS.
>>
>> I'm doubtful. My segment of usage, in the Southeast U.S., doesn't seem
>> to me to be even at 1%, although, there may be many Linux users that I
>> just haven't met, or haven't had the subject come up.
>
> I'm sure you are right, and that the answer is "in the order of 1%"

I'm no longer sure if any of that is built on concrete.

Despite registering 160 million distinct Linux Desktop IP addresses, the
actual hits are still 1% of the entire number of hits counted.

There is a very very fine dividing line created by marketing departments
being crossed here.

What the numbers are saying is that of all the net's users about 90% are
windummies and apphol users but they are clicking more than their
proportionate share and pushing the total number of hits in their favor to
make Linux look as if its 1% of the entire hits that gets counted.

BUT, when distinct IP addresses are counted, at least 160 million
distinct Linux Desktops are registering as being online.

When the total number of PCs are counted, that only counts
to between 1 billion and 2 billion PCs. 2 Billion is an over estimate.
So we are looking 8% to 10% of ALL online desktop PCs as being
Linux Desktop PCs.

There is no escaping the numbers.
Doing it the distrowatch way also gives about the same numbers!!

About 600 million windopws PCs are infected, and I bet that
is what is causing the usage figures to be boosted for windopws
because the infected machines are polling servers to infect them
and pulling ads from servers to pester the users.
That activity is probably enough to make it look as if Linux
usage is 1% because most Linux machines are not infected and won't
create anywhere near the same level of traffic in its favor.

[Hadron]

You're a clueless idiot.

[Snit]

On 5/6/12 2:00 PM, in article 4EBpr.378524$mj1.1...@fx25.am4, "7"

<email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:

> BUT, when distinct IP addresses are counted, at least 160 million
> distinct Linux Desktops are registering as being online.

From our best data, the web stats, desktop Linux is used about 1% of the
time... but that includes mobile devices. When looking at just desktops, it
might be as high as 2%.

That is very low. It is pretty much a rounding error. And it is not the
fault of the boogieman - it is because desktop Linux has not earned a spot
on the desktop (except in rare cases). Elsewhere desktop Linux has earned a
spot - such as the server room.

Why this is even debated in COLA is hard to say - it is not as though anyone
has offered a reasoned alternative idea or that such ideas have not been
expressed and understood by folks such as Shuttleworth and Zemlin. Still,
if someone has a *reasoned* alternative explanation then I would love to
hear it.


--
Proof of cc's bad faith: <http://goo.gl/a45Rm>
Until cc can be honest, there is no point in going forward with the
discussion he is begging me to have with him.

[Homer]

Verily I say unto thee that bbgruff spake thusly:

>
> However, do bear in mind that that is "usage" - meaning the % of web
> accesses made.

Access to the sort of Websites that pay heavily for the privilege of
having their metrics counted, i.e. weighted in favour of a certain
demographic. They also remain anonymous, as a matter of client privacy,
so we'll never know exactly which sites they are. For all anyone knows,
those metrics are being gathered exclusively from Websites oriented
entirely towards Windows/Mac users, the sort of sites that GNU/Linux
users would never have any reason to visit. That'd skew the metrics
considerably. It'd also account for the conspicuous discrepancy between
the number of PCs sold every year, and the number of Windows licenses
sold over the same period, which IIRC is only two-thirds of all PCs.

My personal feeling is that the actual number of GNU/Linux users is much
higher than the "1%" figure being peddled. Certainly Ballmer seems to
think so. He thinks Linux is Microsoft's biggest competitor, and even
produced a chart that claims Linux has a bigger share than the Mac.

http://news.cnet.com/Feeling-the-heat-at-Microsoft/2008-1012_3-6232458.html
http://www.osnews.com/story/21035/Ballmer_Linux_Bigger_Competitor_than_Apple

In any case, my only concern is that people shouldn't be forced to pay
for Windows, just because they buy a PC from a company entirely
unrelated to Microsoft. If Windows were permanently and universally
"unbundled" from PCs, and GNU/Linux's "market" share remained at "1%"
forever anyway, I'd be perfectly satisfied with that outcome. I only
care that it's Free. I don't need it to "dominate" too.

--
K. | "You see? You cannot kill me. There is no flesh
http://slated.org | and blood within this cloak to kill. There is
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | only an idea. And ideas are bulletproof."
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 89 days | ~ V for Vendetta.

[Snit]

On 5/6/12 8:00 PM, in article afqj79-...@sky.matrix, "Homer"

<use...@slated.org> wrote:

> Verily I say unto thee that bbgruff spake thusly:
>>
>> However, do bear in mind that that is "usage" - meaning the % of web
>> accesses made.
>
> Access to the sort of Websites that pay heavily for the privilege of
> having their metrics counted, i.e. weighted in favour of a certain
> demographic.

You can also get free stats from StatCounter and many of the others.

There simply is no reason to think the sites counted are, overall, biased
toward or against any given system's users. None. That is just wishful
thinking on your part.

> They also remain anonymous, as a matter of client privacy,
> so we'll never know exactly which sites they are. For all anyone knows,
> those metrics are being gathered exclusively from Websites oriented
> entirely towards Windows/Mac users, the sort of sites that GNU/Linux
> users would never have any reason to visit.

There is no reason to suspect this is true. None. Complete fantasy
speculation by you.

> That'd skew the metrics considerably.

So would aliens intervening with the people who gather the stats! Oh no!

> It'd also account for the conspicuous discrepancy between
> the number of PCs sold every year, and the number of Windows licenses
> sold over the same period, which IIRC is only two-thirds of all PCs.

Wait: in COLA we are told the boogieman forces all PCs to be sold with
Windows. You, personally, whine about how you are forced to pay for
Windows. Now only 2/3 come with Windows? LOL! Your story sure changed
quickly!

> My personal feeling is that the actual number of GNU/Linux users is much
> higher than the "1%" figure being peddled.

Fair enough: it is your "feeling". But the best evidence does not support
your "feelings".

> Certainly Ballmer seems to think so. He thinks Linux is Microsoft's biggest
> competitor, and even produced a chart that claims Linux has a bigger share
> than the Mac.
>
> http://news.cnet.com/Feeling-the-heat-at-Microsoft/2008-1012_3-6232458.html
> http://www.osnews.com/story/21035/Ballmer_Linux_Bigger_Competitor_than_Apple

Who cares what Ballmer thinks? His one slide does not even hint at where he
got that data.

> In any case, my only concern is that people shouldn't be forced to pay
> for Windows, just because they buy a PC from a company entirely
> unrelated to Microsoft.

Above you say that there are only about 2/3 of Window licenses sold as there
are machines. So clearly buy one of the other third.

> If Windows were permanently and universally "unbundled" from PCs, and
> GNU/Linux's "market" share remained at "1%" forever anyway, I'd be perfectly
> satisfied with that outcome. I only care that it's Free. I don't need it to
> "dominate" too.

Your religion is important to you.

As far as forcing unbundling - no thanks, I prefer choice!

[Homer]

Verily I say unto thee that 7 spake thusly:

>
> What the numbers are saying is that of all the net's users about 90%
> are windummies and apphol users but they are clicking more than their
> proportionate share

A lot of it is probably Malware phoning home, which puts GNU/Linux at an
immediate disadvantage, since it tends not to suffer that affliction.

[Hadron]

Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:

> On 5/6/12 2:00 PM, in article 4EBpr.378524$mj1.1...@fx25.am4, "7"
> <email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>
>> BUT, when distinct IP addresses are counted, at least 160 million
>> distinct Linux Desktops are registering as being online.
>
> From our best data, the web stats, desktop Linux is used about 1% of the
> time... but that includes mobile devices. When looking at just desktops, it
> might be as high as 2%.

Huh?

[7]

Snit wrote:


>> BUT, when distinct IP addresses are counted, at least 160 million
>> distinct Linux Desktops are registering as being online.
>
> From our best data, the web stats, desktop Linux is used about 1% of the
> time... but that includes mobile devices. When looking at just desktops,
> it might be as high as 2%.

Not even remotely possible. Fedora Desktop Linux reports 25 million distinct
IP addresses pulling its updates. Canonical Desktop Linux reports 20 million
users. There are between 1 and 2 billion PC desktop users.
Between just 2 distros, the net number of distinct Desktop users are between
2 and 3% minimum of ALL Desktop usage. Since at least 30 Desktop Linux
distros share the bulk of the PC desktop market, it implies that at least
10% of all desktop PCs are running Desktop Linux now around the globe is a
reasonable estimate. It can be backed up by scaling the figures at
distrowatch.

The hits counts can't reflect the numbers relating to distinct PCs. They are
reflecting how many of those PCs are bleating all the time.

Windopws PCs have 600 million infected desktops that bleat incessantly
phoning websites to attack it or to download malware and ads. So looking at
the hits alone would incorrectly distort numbers because the 600 million
infected PCs bleat all the time across a lot of web sites creating
duplications that distinct IP address count would resolve.

Looking at distinct IP addresses or distinct pulls to update a Linux Desktop
PC will cut through the fog of infected PCs and turn the results into
distinct PCs running Desktop Linux. As a percentage of the total known
Desktop PCs of 1 to 2 billion, 10% of the PCs or between 100 million and 200
million Desktop Linux PCs is not an unreasonable estimate.

[bbgruff]

On Monday 07 May 2012 00:44 Snit wrote:

> On 5/6/12 2:00 PM, in article 4EBpr.378524$mj1.1...@fx25.am4, "7"
> <email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>
>> BUT, when distinct IP addresses are counted, at least 160 million
>> distinct Linux Desktops are registering as being online.
>
> From our best data, the web stats, desktop Linux is used about 1% of the
> time... but that includes mobile devices. When looking at just desktops,
> it might be as high as 2%.
>
> That is very low. It is pretty much a rounding error. And it is not the
> fault of the boogieman - it is because desktop Linux has not earned a spot
> on the desktop (except in rare cases). Elsewhere desktop Linux has earned
> a spot - such as the server room.
>
> Why this is even debated in COLA is hard to say - it is not as though
> anyone has offered a reasoned alternative idea or that such ideas have not
> been
> expressed and understood by folks such as Shuttleworth and Zemlin. Still,
> if someone has a *reasoned* alternative explanation then I would love to
> hear it.

Perhaps we could tart at the other end if you are looking for reasons?

Perhaps *you* could explain to us why Apple had less than 2% of the market
10 years ago, when it had been in the business for 20 years?
That might give us a clue?

[bbgruff]

On Monday 07 May 2012 05:02 Snit wrote:

>> It'd also account for the conspicuous discrepancy between
>> the number of PCs sold every year, and the number of Windows licenses
>> sold over the same period, which IIRC is only two-thirds of all PCs.
>
> Wait: in COLA we are told the boogieman forces all PCs to be sold with
> Windows. You, personally, whine about how you are forced to pay for
> Windows. Now only 2/3 come with Windows? LOL! Your story sure changed
> quickly!

You don't suppose that it might have anything to do with the "bare metal"
machines that are sold to businesses, which load them via their existing
corporate licences?
Perhaps also the number sold for server use has some effect?
In fact, I'd have thought that 2/3 was a fairly good guess at the proportion
of machines destined for the consumer market.

I'm still waiting for you to show me where I can buy (as a U.K. consumer)
all these machines from Dell, Lenovo, HP and Acer without an OS that you
were on about.
I did find a lot of shops selling machines with Ubuntu pre-installed, but
they were all in China.

[bbgruff]

On Monday 07 May 2012 04:00 Homer wrote:

> In any case, my only concern is that people shouldn't be forced to pay
> for Windows, just because they buy a PC from a company entirely
> unrelated to Microsoft. If Windows were permanently and universally
> "unbundled" from PCs, and GNU/Linux's "market" share remained at "1%"
> forever anyway, I'd be perfectly satisfied with that outcome. I only
> care that it's Free. I don't need it to "dominate" too.

My own concern is even more modest - I can't even get the daft buggers in
this group to admit that as far as the main-line manufacturers in the
consumer market are concerned, (HP, Dell, Lenovo, Acer) there is no option
to buy their goods *without* Windows.

Sure, you can buy from a third party, who will even offer Linux (or no OS),
but you'll pay more. Cheapest way is invariably to buy *with* Windows, and
throw Windows away (you have no option to sell it on!)

It's perhaps worth looking at the figures (just my guesses):-

- An OEM Windows is maybe £50 bought separately, or installed by a white-box
company?

- The big boys do better. Maybe £30 included in the price?

- They get something for putting in the crapware, so maybe we are down to
£20 on a new PC (cost to the customer).

That £20 gets you the choice of the whole range from the big boys, and the
ability to cash-in on special offers etc, neither of which options exist
when for example Dell make occasional half-arsed offers to sell you bottom-
end of range with Linux, hidden on some obscure page of their site.

Yes, it's annoying, but from the buyer's point of view, you do best to be
unprincipled, take what they offer at the best price you can get, and throw
the crud away!
As I said though, getting the silly sods in this group to admit that this is
the status quo is quite something else....

[Snit]

On 5/7/12 1:56 AM, in article j7Mpr.422288$y11.2...@fx21.am4, "7"

<email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:

> Snit wrote:
>
>
>>> BUT, when distinct IP addresses are counted, at least 160 million
>>> distinct Linux Desktops are registering as being online.
>>
>> From our best data, the web stats, desktop Linux is used about 1% of the
>> time... but that includes mobile devices. When looking at just desktops,
>> it might be as high as 2%.
>
>
> Not even remotely possible.

Sure it is:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Web_clients>

There the data is. If you think you have verifiable contrary data, then
fine - but until them to claim otherwise is just wrong.

> Fedora Desktop Linux reports 25 million distinct IP addresses pulling its
> updates. Canonical Desktop Linux reports 20 million users. There are between 1
> and 2 billion PC desktop users. Between just 2 distros, the net number of
> distinct Desktop users are between 2 and 3% minimum of ALL Desktop usage.

This does not mean these people use just that distro. I use multiple
distros in VMs. I am a part of those stats.

The stats I point to show usage... not just people who might have it in a VM
or whatever. In other words, your stats do not show usage, they show people
who might have it based on self-reporting by groups with vested interests...
and even then

> Since at least 30 Desktop Linux distros share the bulk of the PC desktop
> market, it implies that at least 10% of all desktop PCs are running Desktop
> Linux now around the globe is a reasonable estimate. It can be backed up by
> scaling the figures at distrowatch.

No. It implies no such thing. Not even close. Your claim is contrary to
reason, logic, and evidence.

> The hits counts can't reflect the numbers relating to distinct PCs. They are
> reflecting how many of those PCs are bleating all the time.

The hit counts reports, roughly, usage. So if someone uses Windows 90% of
the time and Linux 10% of the time that is what is seen. With just updates,
you would be counting that person as using Linux 100% of the time.

So, yes, likely more than just the 1-2% of machines have Linux - but its
*usage* is at, around, that level.

> Windopws PCs have 600 million infected desktops that bleat incessantly
> phoning websites to attack it or to download malware and ads. So looking at
> the hits alone would incorrectly distort numbers because the 600 million
> infected PCs bleat all the time across a lot of web sites creating
> duplications that distinct IP address count would resolve.

Nice theory... any evidence malware is boosting such stats? And do you say
the same thing about Android with its malware? Are its stats being heavily
overly reported?

Also keep in mind that those who use Linux likely are more technical and do
more online - and thus are over-represented.

> Looking at distinct IP addresses or distinct pulls to update a Linux Desktop
> PC will cut through the fog of infected PCs and turn the results into
> distinct PCs running Desktop Linux.

Nope. Not unless each person runs only one OS... which is not at all the
case. Linux can easily be dual booted or run in a VM (as can Windows).

> As a percentage of the total known
> Desktop PCs of 1 to 2 billion, 10% of the PCs or between 100 million and 200
> million Desktop Linux PCs is not an unreasonable estimate.

It is an absurd "estimate" of usage. Even of people who have it installed
in a VM or whatever it is a stretch.

[Snit]

On 5/7/12 4:01 AM, in article a0poch...@mid.individual.net, "bbgruff"

I do not see the connection? What is it you need explained to you?

Perhaps you are missing the fact that Macs, unlike Linux, is not free. They
*did* have a very low usage share because, while they had many advantages
over Windows, those advantages were not (for most) worth the very large
difference in price (and, of course, there were also many downsides - such
as software selection and the like). This supports what I am saying: as
Apple made its OS better it *earned* a higher user base... and now, even
though the average Mac costs about 2x the cost of the average Windows PC,
Apple has *earned* a rather respectable user base percentage. One would not
expect the higher prices devices to have the lion's share of the market -
the lower end products take that "honor".

But Linux is, in terms of price, the lowest of the low end. And yet it
*still* cannot gain a usage share much beyond what would be expected by
statistical and rounding errors. It is *not* catching on.

To be fair: for a while it seemed like it was gaining share - and this was
during the time (or shortly after) that KDE and Gnome and Unity and other
projects were pushing for a better user experience. The word did,
apparently, get out and people did try it. But the stats have since dropped
again.

What happened to those users? They did not stick with Linux. Linux is not
earning its place on the desktop, just as Apple was not when they were at
such a low percentage, but at least in Apple's case part of their limitation
was the high price of the machines - Linux has no such excuse.

[Snit]

On 5/7/12 4:07 AM, in article a0pooa...@mid.individual.net, "bbgruff"

<bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On Monday 07 May 2012 05:02 Snit wrote:
>
>>> It'd also account for the conspicuous discrepancy between
>>> the number of PCs sold every year, and the number of Windows licenses
>>> sold over the same period, which IIRC is only two-thirds of all PCs.
>>
>> Wait: in COLA we are told the boogieman forces all PCs to be sold with
>> Windows. You, personally, whine about how you are forced to pay for
>> Windows. Now only 2/3 come with Windows? LOL! Your story sure changed
>> quickly!
>
> You don't suppose that it might have anything to do with the "bare metal"
> machines that are sold to businesses, which load them via their existing
> corporate licences?

So you think Homer is wrong about this discrepancy being odd in any way.

Why didn't you call him out on it?

And now that you have admitted so many machines are sold without Windows,
are you willing to stand up and admit that the claim they all come with
Windows, a common claim in COLA, is utter BS.

> Perhaps also the number sold for server use has some effect?
> In fact, I'd have thought that 2/3 was a fairly good guess at the proportion
> of machines destined for the consumer market.
>
> I'm still waiting for you to show me where I can buy (as a U.K. consumer)
> all these machines from Dell, Lenovo, HP and Acer without an OS that you
> were on about.

Waiting for what? For me to do research for you? To call your local shops?
To do *more* online research for you (remember, I already showed you the
some Linux pages on the Dell site, including the UK Dell site). Just what
work are you asking me to do for you?

> I did find a lot of shops selling machines with Ubuntu pre-installed, but
> they were all in China.
>

[Snit]

On 5/7/12 12:01 AM, in article riipg8f...@news.eternal-september.org,

The stats:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Web_clients>

They show all types of devices. It is fair to exclude non-desktop devices
and take those out of the stats... so if you are looking at just desktop
device percentages each of the reported percentages will be a bit low. This
discrepancy is pretty small right now, but will grow as mobile device use
grows.

[Hadron]

Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:

> On 5/7/12 12:01 AM, in article riipg8f...@news.eternal-september.org,
> "Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 5/6/12 2:00 PM, in article 4EBpr.378524$mj1.1...@fx25.am4, "7"
>>> <email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> BUT, when distinct IP addresses are counted, at least 160 million
>>>> distinct Linux Desktops are registering as being online.
>>>
>>> From our best data, the web stats, desktop Linux is used about 1% of the
>>> time... but that includes mobile devices. When looking at just desktops, it
>>> might be as high as 2%.
>>
>> Huh?
>
> The stats:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Web_clients>
>
> They show all types of devices. It is fair to exclude non-desktop devices
> and take those out of the stats... so if you are looking at just desktop
> device percentages each of the reported percentages will be a bit low. This
> discrepancy is pretty small right now, but will grow as mobile device use
> grows.

You need to re-read or reparse you claim above.

You said that is 1% of the time "but that includes mobile device". So
how can it be HIGHER when looking *just at* desktops?

Even Creepy has acknowledge the 1% "thereabouts" figure. Dumb Willy
Poaster is still claiming... 14%... LOL!

[cc]

On Monday, May 7, 2012 10:35:21 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
>
> To be fair: for a while it seemed like it was gaining share -

Only to those unable to do a simple regression analysis.

--
"While pregnant for me, my mom continued to drink, at least for the 1st trimester if not more." - Snit

[Hadron]

cc <scat...@hotmail.com> writes:

> On Monday, May 7, 2012 10:35:21 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> To be fair: for a while it seemed like it was gaining share -
>
> Only to those unable to do a simple regression analysis.

You've been shown to be wrong time and time again with these
numbers. I'm bemused as to why you continue. Move on.

[7]

Snit wrote:

> On 5/7/12 1:56 AM, in article j7Mpr.422288$y11.2...@fx21.am4, "7"
> <email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> BUT, when distinct IP addresses are counted, at least 160 million
>>>> distinct Linux Desktops are registering as being online.
>>>
>>> From our best data, the web stats, desktop Linux is used about 1% of the
>>> time... but that includes mobile devices. When looking at just
>>> desktops, it might be as high as 2%.
>>
>>
>> Not even remotely possible.
>
> Sure it is:
>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Web_clients>
>
> There the data is. If you think you have verifiable contrary data, then
> fine - but until them to claim otherwise is just wrong.

It is wrong.
They are based on hit stats and not unique IP address stats.
Unique IP address will reveal that there are not many windopws users.
And that the 600 million infected PCs are doing the bulk of the online
hits.

>> Fedora Desktop Linux reports 25 million distinct IP addresses pulling its
>> updates. Canonical Desktop Linux reports 20 million users. There are
>> between 1 and 2 billion PC desktop users. Between just 2 distros, the net
>> number of distinct Desktop users are between 2 and 3% minimum of ALL
>> Desktop usage.
>
> This does not mean these people use just that distro. I use multiple
> distros in VMs. I am a part of those stats.

Most people do not use multiple desktop distros.
They use one desktop most of the time.
So its reasonable to argue there is a one to one correlation
between a software update and a PC.
Bear in mind there are a lot of people that sit behind one IP address
and that means more than one user per IP address which also implies
the numbers are being under reported.

> The stats I point to show usage... not just people who might have it in a
> VM
> or whatever. In other words, your stats do not show usage

Usage is distorted by 600 million infected windopws PCs doing
constant bleating whether the PC is being used or not.
So this method doesn't reflect true usage. About a third of the
usage is over reported.

[Hadron]

7 <email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> writes:

> Snit wrote:
>
>> On 5/7/12 1:56 AM, in article j7Mpr.422288$y11.2...@fx21.am4, "7"
>> <email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> BUT, when distinct IP addresses are counted, at least 160 million
>>>>> distinct Linux Desktops are registering as being online.
>>>>
>>>> From our best data, the web stats, desktop Linux is used about 1% of the
>>>> time... but that includes mobile devices. When looking at just
>>>> desktops, it might be as high as 2%.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not even remotely possible.
>>
>> Sure it is:
>>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Web_clients>
>>
>> There the data is. If you think you have verifiable contrary data, then
>> fine - but until them to claim otherwise is just wrong.
>
> It is wrong.
> They are based on hit stats and not unique IP address stats.
> Unique IP address will reveal that there are not many windopws users.
> And that the 600 million infected PCs are doing the bulk of the online
> hits.

You really are an idiot.

1) Most people in an office are behind a single IP address.

2) Hit stats with a verifiable user agent and on a good cross section of
consumer web sites are a GOOD indication of usage. Malware doesnt sit
there pinging w3schools or BBC you fucking idiot.

[bbgruff]

On Monday 07 May 2012 15:38 Snit wrote:

> On 5/7/12 4:07 AM, in article a0pooa...@mid.individual.net, "bbgruff"
> <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Monday 07 May 2012 05:02 Snit wrote:
>>
>>>> It'd also account for the conspicuous discrepancy between
>>>> the number of PCs sold every year, and the number of Windows licenses
>>>> sold over the same period, which IIRC is only two-thirds of all PCs.
>>>
>>> Wait: in COLA we are told the boogieman forces all PCs to be sold with
>>> Windows. You, personally, whine about how you are forced to pay for
>>> Windows. Now only 2/3 come with Windows? LOL! Your story sure changed
>>> quickly!
>>
>> You don't suppose that it might have anything to do with the "bare metal"
>> machines that are sold to businesses, which load them via their existing
>> corporate licences?
>
> So you think Homer is wrong about this discrepancy being odd in any way.
>
> Why didn't you call him out on it?
>
> And now that you have admitted so many machines are sold without Windows,
> are you willing to stand up and admit that the claim they all come with
> Windows, a common claim in COLA, is utter BS.

No - I'm calling *you* a liar and a bull-shitter.

>> Perhaps also the number sold for server use has some effect?
>> In fact, I'd have thought that 2/3 was a fairly good guess at the
>> proportion of machines destined for the consumer market.
>>
>> I'm still waiting for you to show me where I can buy (as a U.K. consumer)
>> all these machines from Dell, Lenovo, HP and Acer without an OS that you
>> were on about.
>
> Waiting for what? For me to do research for you? To call your local
> shops? To do *more* online research for you (remember, I already showed
> you the
> some Linux pages on the Dell site, including the UK Dell site). Just what
> work are you asking me to do for you?

Just asking you to show me why you aren't a liar, and why you keep swearing
that black is white.
I grant you that *all* the big companies sell "bare metal" - to the
enterprise.
I'm just waiting for you to admit that as far as the consumer is concerned,
the big manufacturers do not offer a "No OS" option on their range - or
indeed any OS other than Windows

[cc]

That's laughable. I'm sure you'll point to where it was wrong then. No one has disputed the equations I gave for the trendlines (which were flat), not even Snit. So please, enlighten us, little man.

[Peter Köhlmann]

Hadron wrote:

> 7 <email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> writes:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/7/12 1:56 AM, in article j7Mpr.422288$y11.2...@fx21.am4, "7"
>>> <email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> BUT, when distinct IP addresses are counted, at least 160 million
>>>>>> distinct Linux Desktops are registering as being online.
>>>>>
>>>>> From our best data, the web stats, desktop Linux is used about 1% of
>>>>> the
>>>>> time... but that includes mobile devices. When looking at just
>>>>> desktops, it might be as high as 2%.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not even remotely possible.
>>>
>>> Sure it is:
>>>
>>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Web_clients>
>>>
>>> There the data is. If you think you have verifiable contrary data, then
>>> fine - but until them to claim otherwise is just wrong.
>>
>> It is wrong.
>> They are based on hit stats and not unique IP address stats.
>> Unique IP address will reveal that there are not many windopws users.
>> And that the 600 million infected PCs are doing the bulk of the online
>> hits.
>
> You really are an idiot.
>
> 1) Most people in an office are behind a single IP address.

No. Most families are. Companies tend to not use such crutches.
They tend to be behind several routers

> 2) Hit stats with a verifiable user agent and on a good cross section of
> consumer web sites are a GOOD indication of usage.

No, and they never have been

> Malware doesnt sit
> there pinging w3schools or BBC you fucking idiot.

That "fucking idiot" would be you. And what about your "manners" (if you
ever had something like that)? You attack people every oterh day because of
their language to foul mouthed Pieces of Dreck like you.

[Snit]

On 5/7/12 8:30 AM, in article NURpr.105309$JQ.4...@fx02.am4, "7"

<email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:

> Snit wrote:
>
>> On 5/7/12 1:56 AM, in article j7Mpr.422288$y11.2...@fx21.am4, "7"
>> <email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> BUT, when distinct IP addresses are counted, at least 160 million
>>>>> distinct Linux Desktops are registering as being online.
>>>>
>>>> From our best data, the web stats, desktop Linux is used about 1% of the
>>>> time... but that includes mobile devices. When looking at just
>>>> desktops, it might be as high as 2%.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not even remotely possible.
>>
>> Sure it is:
>>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Web_clients>
>>
>> There the data is. If you think you have verifiable contrary data, then
>> fine - but until them to claim otherwise is just wrong.
>
> It is wrong.

I understand you wish that to be true, but sadly the evidence does not back
your wishes.

> They are based on hit stats and not unique IP address stats.

Right. It thus shows, roughly, how much each OS is used (at least for the
task of web surfing). Now it is true that Linux users are likely more savvy
than Windows users and surf more, but this is not likely a big enough
different to matter.

> Unique IP address will reveal that there are not many windopws users.
> And that the 600 million infected PCs are doing the bulk of the online
> hits.

This is interesting wishful thinking. Without support or evidence, though,
it is a rather silly claim. And I do not see you pushing it for Android, so
it is not as though it is a claim you are really showing any signs of
believing yourself. Or do you say the Android stats are also
over-estimated?

>>> Fedora Desktop Linux reports 25 million distinct IP addresses pulling its
>>> updates. Canonical Desktop Linux reports 20 million users. There are
>>> between 1 and 2 billion PC desktop users. Between just 2 distros, the net
>>> number of distinct Desktop users are between 2 and 3% minimum of ALL
>>> Desktop usage.
>>
>> This does not mean these people use just that distro. I use multiple
>> distros in VMs. I am a part of those stats.
>
> Most people do not use multiple desktop distros.

They will try different ones.

> They use one desktop most of the time.

Actually, of those I know who use Linux this is not true. They use it
*some* of the time. Not all.

> So its reasonable to argue there is a one to one correlation
> between a software update and a PC.

No, and it does not fit with the usage data (given your claims about updates
are true - something that has not been supported).

> Bear in mind there are a lot of people that sit behind one IP address
> and that means more than one user per IP address which also implies
> the numbers are being under reported.

Hit counts are not IP counts.

>> The stats I point to show usage... not just people who might have it in a VM
>> or whatever. In other words, your stats do not show usage
>
> Usage is distorted by 600 million infected windopws PCs doing
> constant bleating whether the PC is being used or not.

Interesting though unsupported theory. You do like to repeat it a lot
through. Can you show that there are that many infected PCs which are being
used to hit the sites which are using these stat counters?

> So this method doesn't reflect true usage. About a third of the
> usage is over reported.

Interesting and unsupported theory.

[Snit]

On 5/7/12 8:41 AM, in article a0q8ot...@mid.individual.net, "bbgruff"
<bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

...

>> So you think Homer is wrong about this discrepancy being odd in any way.
>>
>> Why didn't you call him out on it?
>>
>> And now that you have admitted so many machines are sold without Windows,
>> are you willing to stand up and admit that the claim they all come with
>> Windows, a common claim in COLA, is utter BS.
>
> No - I'm calling *you* a liar and a bull-shitter.

Well, the fact you call me names to please your herd is of no surprise! As
I have noted, it is a common tactic of your herd to make such accusations
when you know you have no real point to make.

And you have just proved me correct.

But let us look at the facts:

* Homer claims that he is forced to get Windows when he buys computer
hardware. It is a part of his boogieman paranoid claims.

* Homer also claims that about 1/3 of computer hardware is sold without
Windows.

Which of Homer's claims do you think is accurate? Or do you prefer to
continue to dodge the question and try to obfuscate the discrepancy of his
by calling me names and making false accusations? I bet the latter, but I
am open to you proving me wrong.

>>> Perhaps also the number sold for server use has some effect? In fact, I'd
>>> have thought that 2/3 was a fairly good guess at the proportion of machines
>>> destined for the consumer market.
>>>
>>> I'm still waiting for you to show me where I can buy (as a U.K. consumer)
>>> all these machines from Dell, Lenovo, HP and Acer without an OS that you
>>> were on about.
>>>
>> Waiting for what? For me to do research for you? To call your local shops?
>> To do *more* online research for you (remember, I already showed you the some
>> Linux pages on the Dell site, including the UK Dell site). Just what work
>> are you asking me to do for you?
>
> Just asking you to show me why you aren't a liar, and why you keep swearing
> that black is white.

You want me to show you why I am not a liar! Wow. You live in a world
where lying is such the norm where you need a reason for someone to not lie.
Well, for me I do not lie because I think it is (almost always) the wrong
thing to do. So that is "why" I am not a liar.

> I grant you that *all* the big companies sell "bare metal" - to the
> enterprise.

I am sure Kirk appreciates this. :)

> I'm just waiting for you to admit that as far as the consumer is concerned,
> the big manufacturers do not offer a "No OS" option on their range - or
> indeed any OS other than Windows

As discussed: they may or may not right now - I have not checked. But they
have sold computers with Linux pre-installed... but they, clearly, have not
found that to work well for them (or their customers). Still, there are
many options to get computer with Linux pre-installed. Doing literally
seconds of looking on Dell's site, though, I see this:

<http://goo.gl/PpKeH>
-----
Ubuntu on Desktops and Laptops

Dell sells select desktop and laptop systems with Ubuntu
Desktop Edition factory installed. See the wiki for technical
details.

N-Series Dektops and Laptops

Dell sells some "n-Series" Desktops, Workstations and
Laptops. "n-Series" systems ship with FreeDOS on a CD in the
box.
-----

But, as noted, you can do your own research - esp. with you calling me names
and making false accusations, it is rather absurd of you to keep asking me
to help you find systems you might want to purchase.

>>> I did find a lot of shops selling machines with Ubuntu pre-installed, but
>>> they were all in China.
>
>

[Snit]

On 5/7/12 8:09 AM, in article
27668432.680.1336403371260.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynja13, "cc"

<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, May 7, 2012 10:35:21 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> To be fair: for a while it seemed like it was gaining share -
>
> Only to those unable to do a simple regression analysis.

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>

I must say, it amuses me how much it pisses you off to have been proved so
wrong.

cc #1:
-----
It will be 1%. Same as it ever was.
-----
cc #2:
-----
Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
-----

Did you ever decide which one you believe and which one you do not?

LOL!

[Snit]

On 5/7/12 8:46 AM, in article
3886666.756.1336405588536.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbv35, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> little man

You ask for assistance as you call me names. Nope. Learn to be polite and
I will be much more likely to help you understand what you clear have not
been able to. As I have noted, until you can show you are ending your bad
faith, there is no point in helping you understand things on this topic.

[Snit]

On 5/7/12 7:55 AM, in article auy5p4c...@news.eternal-september.org,

"Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>
>> On 5/7/12 12:01 AM, in article riipg8f...@news.eternal-september.org,
>> "Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 5/6/12 2:00 PM, in article 4EBpr.378524$mj1.1...@fx25.am4, "7"
>>>> <email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> BUT, when distinct IP addresses are counted, at least 160 million
>>>>> distinct Linux Desktops are registering as being online.
>>>>
>>>> From our best data, the web stats, desktop Linux is used about 1% of the
>>>> time... but that includes mobile devices. When looking at just desktops,
>>>> it
>>>> might be as high as 2%.
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>
>> The stats:
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Web_clients>
>>
>> They show all types of devices. It is fair to exclude non-desktop devices
>> and take those out of the stats... so if you are looking at just desktop
>> device percentages each of the reported percentages will be a bit low. This
>> discrepancy is pretty small right now, but will grow as mobile device use
>> grows.
>
>
> You need to re-read or reparse you claim above.
>
> You said that is 1% of the time "but that includes mobile device". So
> how can it be HIGHER when looking *just at* desktops?

If desktop usage is 1% of all usage, when you limit the usage you are
looking a to just desktops, the same numbers, with the smaller "pool", will
lead to a higher percentage.

Quick example:

Say there are 10 desktop Linux users out of 1000 machines. Linux is, in
that case, at 1 percent.

But if only 500 of those machines are desktop computers, then you have 10
desktop Linux users for 500 desktop machines - 2%.

To be clear, that is just a quick example - I am not saying those are the
actual numbers!

> Even Creepy has acknowledge the 1% "thereabouts" figure. Dumb Willy
> Poaster is still claiming... 14%... LOL!
>

[Snit]

On 5/7/12 8:34 AM, in article irlil4c...@news.eternal-september.org,

"Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 7 <email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> writes:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/7/12 1:56 AM, in article j7Mpr.422288$y11.2...@fx21.am4, "7"
>>> <email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> BUT, when distinct IP addresses are counted, at least 160 million
>>>>>> distinct Linux Desktops are registering as being online.
>>>>>
>>>>> From our best data, the web stats, desktop Linux is used about 1% of the
>>>>> time... but that includes mobile devices. When looking at just
>>>>> desktops, it might be as high as 2%.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not even remotely possible.
>>>
>>> Sure it is:
>>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Web_clients>
>>>
>>> There the data is. If you think you have verifiable contrary data, then
>>> fine - but until them to claim otherwise is just wrong.
>>
>> It is wrong.
>> They are based on hit stats and not unique IP address stats.
>> Unique IP address will reveal that there are not many windopws users.
>> And that the 600 million infected PCs are doing the bulk of the online
>> hits.
>
> You really are an idiot.
>
> 1) Most people in an office are behind a single IP address.

Exactly... and home users with multiple computers are, too. And people
using the same Starbucks are as well.

> 2) Hit stats with a verifiable user agent and on a good cross section of
> consumer web sites are a GOOD indication of usage. Malware doesnt sit
> there pinging w3schools or BBC you fucking idiot.

Right: it is not as if malware is designed to make Windows look good.

[bbgruff]

On Monday 07 May 2012 18:27 Snit wrote:

> As discussed: they may or may not right now - I have not checked. But
> they have sold computers with Linux pre-installed... but they, clearly,
> have not found that to work well for them (or their customers). Still,
> there are many options to get computer with Linux pre-installed. Doing
> literally seconds of looking on Dell's site, though, I see this:
>
> <http://goo.gl/PpKeH>
> -----
> Ubuntu on Desktops and Laptops
>
> Dell sells select desktop and laptop systems with Ubuntu
> Desktop Edition factory installed. See the wiki for technical
> details.
>
> N-Series Dektops and Laptops
>
> Dell sells some "n-Series" Desktops, Workstations and
> Laptops. "n-Series" systems ship with FreeDOS on a CD in the
> box.
> -----
>
> But, as noted, you can do your own research - esp. with you calling me
> names and making false accusations, it is rather absurd of you to keep
> asking me to help you find systems you might want to purchase.

Since your link refers to Ubuntu 7.04 (released April 2007, and superseded
by 7.10 in October 2007)), I think that we can say "tried selling some years
ago" rather than "sells", can't we Snit?

Now stop being so bloody obtuse.
The fact is, whatever you say, that as far as the consumer is concerned, and
amongst the big manufacturers, the option is Windows or Windows.

Why the hell do you keep denying the situation?
I'm not even arguing that the situation is good or bad, just telling you
what the facts are, and you remain in denial.

[Snit]

On 5/7/12 9:19 AM, in article jo8spd$e5q$1...@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann"

<peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:

>> You really are an idiot.
>>
>> 1) Most people in an office are behind a single IP address.
>
> No. Most families are. Companies tend to not use such crutches.
> They tend to be behind several routers

Routers are now "crutches" to you.

Interesting.

In any case, yes, larger companies may very well have many IP addresses -
with many users behind each one. This fact backs the overall claim you are
trying to deny.

>> 2) Hit stats with a verifiable user agent and on a good cross section of
>> consumer web sites are a GOOD indication of usage.
>
> No, and they never have been

So you say... but give no counter evidence.

...

[Snit]

On 5/7/12 10:56 AM, in article a0qglj...@mid.individual.net, "bbgruff"

<bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On Monday 07 May 2012 18:27 Snit wrote:
>
>> As discussed: they may or may not right now - I have not checked. But
>> they have sold computers with Linux pre-installed... but they, clearly,
>> have not found that to work well for them (or their customers). Still,
>> there are many options to get computer with Linux pre-installed. Doing
>> literally seconds of looking on Dell's site, though, I see this:
>>
>> <http://goo.gl/PpKeH>
>> -----
>> Ubuntu on Desktops and Laptops
>>
>> Dell sells select desktop and laptop systems with Ubuntu
>> Desktop Edition factory installed. See the wiki for technical
>> details.
>>
>> N-Series Dektops and Laptops
>>
>> Dell sells some "n-Series" Desktops, Workstations and
>> Laptops. "n-Series" systems ship with FreeDOS on a CD in the
>> box.
>> -----
>>
>> But, as noted, you can do your own research - esp. with you calling me
>> names and making false accusations, it is rather absurd of you to keep
>> asking me to help you find systems you might want to purchase.
>
> Since your link refers to Ubuntu 7.04 (released April 2007, and superseded
> by 7.10 in October 2007)), I think that we can say "tried selling some years
> ago" rather than "sells", can't we Snit?

Check the revision history: <http://goo.gl/7mu5x>

You current whine is they are not selling the version of Linux you want them
to.

Yup... that is one of the reasons why they do not. Even if they had the
most up-to-date Linux you might want Mint or Fedora or PCLOS.

Oh, and they also sell computers with FreeDOS, at least according to that
link.

> Now stop being so bloody obtuse.

Poor bbgruff: proved wrong again so he whines. Waaaaaah!

> The fact is, whatever you say, that as far as the consumer is concerned, and
> amongst the big manufacturers, the option is Windows or Windows.

Wrong. Macs are also a pretty big option. There are no other options which
have shown themselves to be commercially viable. No boogieman needed to
understand that!

> Why the hell do you keep denying the situation?

I am denying nothing. I am not the one who is claiming that Linux is
commercially viable (other than from niche providers). That is you... and
now you are whining that you cannot find any evidence to support this claim
of yours so you want my help to show where Dell and HP and the like sell
Linux systems.

As you have noted, where Linux is commercially viable, for corporate needs
(largely server needs), Dell and the like *do* provide it. The boogieman
does not stop them.

So your complain is nothing more than whining that desktop Linux is not
commercially viable - other than as sold in some niches by small companies.
And I agree this is a problem - one I, Shuttleworth, Zemlin and others who
are fans of Linux and OSS have all talked about.

> I'm not even arguing that the situation is good or bad, just telling you
> what the facts are, and you remain in denial.

You are making things up. I am letting you know that just so you do not
think you are getting away with it without it being noticed. :)

[Snit]

On 5/6/12 11:13 PM, in article ko5k79-...@sky.matrix, "Homer"
<use...@slated.org> wrote:

> Verily I say unto thee that 7 spake thusly:
>>
>> What the numbers are saying is that of all the net's users about 90%
>> are windummies and apphol users but they are clicking more than their
>> proportionate share
>
> A lot of it is probably Malware phoning home, which puts GNU/Linux at an
> immediate disadvantage, since it tends not to suffer that affliction.

Ah, so you think the stats for Android are grossly overrepresented as well.

Right?

[cc]

On Monday, May 7, 2012 1:29:10 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 5/7/12 8:09 AM, in article
> 27668432.680.1336403371260.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynja13, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, May 7, 2012 10:35:21 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> To be fair: for a while it seemed like it was gaining share -
> >
> > Only to those unable to do a simple regression analysis.
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
>
> I must say, it amuses me how much it pisses you off to have been proved so
> wrong.

Your trendlines are INCORRECT. That is a FACT.

Hadron, you pompous faggot, here is a chance to finally back yourself up for once in your life. The ACTUAL trendline should be y = 0.0038x + 0.9702. You'll notice that is flatlined, as one would expect. That equation is using just Snit's data he posted at that link.

I get an average of 1.06%, and a stddev of 0.168262. I set control limits to 1.5*sigma and did a linear trend (obviously). Now tell me where I went wrong. Come on Hadron, don't run, you claimed I was proven wrong with those numbers, so back it up. Bonus points if you can figure out what the fuck Snit did that resulted in such incorrect analysis.

> cc #1:
> -----
> It will be 1%. Same as it ever was.
> -----
> cc #2:
> -----
> Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
> -----
>
> Did you ever decide which one you believe and which one you do not?
>
> LOL!
>
>

#2 was a joke at your expense, obvious to everyone but yourself.

[Snit]

On 5/7/12 11:55 AM, in article
26509491.1244.1336416925113.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynmk20, "cc"

<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, May 7, 2012 1:29:10 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 5/7/12 8:09 AM, in article
>> 27668432.680.1336403371260.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynja13, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, May 7, 2012 10:35:21 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To be fair: for a while it seemed like it was gaining share -
>>>
>>> Only to those unable to do a simple regression analysis.
>>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
>>
>> I must say, it amuses me how much it pisses you off to have been proved so
>> wrong.
>
> Your trendlines are INCORRECT. That is a FACT.

Nope. But you *want* them to be. Poor cc... facts are just not something
you like or can handle. Wahhhhhh. So you better get to name calling so you
can feel better about yourself!

> Hadron, you pompous faggot,

There it is! Name calling by cc so he can feel better about himself. And
not just any name-calling, but homophobic name calling. What class cc
shows!

Oh, and notice cc was confused and thought he was talking to Hadron. Well,
mistakes happen... maybe cc will admit to this mistake of his.

> here is a chance to finally back yourself up for once in your life. The ACTUAL
> trendline should be y = 0.0038x + 0.9702. You'll notice that is flatlined, as
> one would expect. That equation is using just Snit's data he posted at that
> link.

Ah, so you think the trend lines made by Excel and Numbers are calculated
incorrectly. LOL! Yeah, once again you are a brilliant mathematician who
has proved these tools to be incorrect. Nobody else ever noticed!

You really are just lost.

....

>> cc #1:
>> -----
>> It will be 1%. Same as it ever was.
>> -----
>> cc #2:
>> -----
>> Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
>> -----
>>
>> Did you ever decide which one you believe and which one you do not?
>>
>> LOL!
>
> #2 was a joke at your expense, obvious to everyone but yourself.

Ah, so you deny there has been a significant downtrend since January when
Linux was listed as being at above 1.5%.

Yeah, math is another of your strong areas. LOL!

[cc]

On Monday, May 7, 2012 3:46:28 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 5/7/12 11:55 AM, in article
> 26509491.1244.1336416925113.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynmk20, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> Oh, and notice cc was confused and thought he was talking to Hadron. Well,
> mistakes happen... maybe cc will admit to this mistake of his.

I didn't think I was talking to Hadron, moron. I was addressing Hadron directly in my response to you.

> > here is a chance to finally back yourself up for once in your life. The ACTUAL
> > trendline should be y = 0.0038x + 0.9702. You'll notice that is flatlined, as
> > one would expect. That equation is using just Snit's data he posted at that
> > link.
>
> Ah, so you think the trend lines made by Excel and Numbers are calculated
> incorrectly. LOL! Yeah, once again you are a brilliant mathematician who
> has proved these tools to be incorrect. Nobody else ever noticed!
>
> You really are just lost.

It's how you use the tools. Apparently you don't know how to use Excel. I used Excel to generate my lines (and really do the analysis for me) using your data. I know what I'm doing though. You just don't know how to use technology. Not surprising since this is not a very technical group.

Yet again you find no flaw with my analysis. You only attempt to backtrack and make excuses for your mistakes.

Hadron, you're up you little pillow biter. Let's see if you can do better than your lover Snit who's best attempt so far is showing his incompetance at Excel.

[Snit]

On 5/7/12 12:54 PM, in article
9418444.1437.1336420471564.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynff16, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

...

>> Oh, and notice cc was confused and thought he was talking to Hadron. Well,
>> mistakes happen... maybe cc will admit to this mistake of his.
>
> I didn't think I was talking to Hadron, moron. I was addressing Hadron
> directly in my response to you.

The text immediately preceding your reply:
---------

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>

I must say, it amuses me how much it pisses you off to have been proved so
wrong.

---------

That was me. Not Hadron. You got confused. That is OK, confusion happens
to you a lot. It is your normal state, it does seem. But enough of that -
who cares that you cannot keep track of who said what. Let's get back to
your claim that both Excel and Numbers get their trend lines wrong. LOL!

You really are a complete and total idiot who thinks he is an expert in
everything and is really just lost on, well, pretty much all topics.

But you do keep me laughing.

...

[cc]

On Monday, May 7, 2012 4:28:15 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> Let's get back to
> your claim that both Excel and Numbers get their trend lines wrong. LOL!

Do you have a quote for that? I have a quote of me saying you were using the tools incorrectly, not that the tools were incorrect. I used Excel as well, but I know what I'm doing.

[7]

Snit wrote:

> On 5/6/12 11:13 PM, in article ko5k79-...@sky.matrix, "Homer"
> <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>
>> Verily I say unto thee that 7 spake thusly:
>>>
>>> What the numbers are saying is that of all the net's users about 90%
>>> are windummies and apphol users but they are clicking more than their
>>> proportionate share
>>
>> A lot of it is probably Malware phoning home, which puts GNU/Linux at an
>> immediate disadvantage, since it tends not to suffer that affliction.
>
> Ah, so you think the stats for Android are grossly overrepresented as
> well.
>
> Right?

You merely have tell us one currently active Android virus in the Android
market that is doing this grossness hallucination of yours seeing as they
remove it all within 5 minutes of having it reported,
and remove it from any machine that connects to the internet automatically.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, 7 belched this bit o' wisdom:

7 exhibits more logic than Snit.

To tell you the truth, although there are exceptions, the "herd" is
a more logical "herd". Also a more humorous "herd", and a more pleasant
"herd".

--
Accessible design is good design.
-- Steve Ballmer

[Snit]

On 5/7/12 1:41 PM, in article
2436931.401.1336423303193.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynff7, "cc"

<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, May 7, 2012 4:28:15 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> Let's get back to
>> your claim that both Excel and Numbers get their trend lines wrong. LOL!
>
> Do you have a quote for that?

You mean other than you repeatedly whining that the trend lines produced by
Excel and Numbers are wrong? LOL!

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>

Hey, even though I owe you *nothing* to prove I am right, look at this:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>

Yeah, both in Excel and Numbers the trend line is *exactly* as I show it to
be.

> I have a quote of me saying you were using the tools incorrectly, not that the
> tools were incorrect. I used Excel as well, but I know what I'm doing.

Oh, by all means do post a video of you educating me on how to use these
tools correctly. I would love to see that! I bet you have that video made
by the end of the day, right?

LOL!

[Snit]

On 5/7/12 1:43 PM, in article ztWpr.4043$EQ....@fx18.am4, "7"

You are claiming malware is removed that quickly.

LOL!

No. Now you are just making things up. Again.

But your double standard is amazing... malware on Windows leads to it being
over-represented... but malware on Android does not. Make up your mind!

[Snit]

On 5/7/12 2:06 PM, in article jo9dgt$ri6$1...@dont-email.me, "Chris Ahlstrom"

7 is clueless... but you do like to stroke him.

[cc]

On Monday, May 7, 2012 5:40:19 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 5/7/12 1:41 PM, in article
> 2436931.401.1336423303193.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynff7, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, May 7, 2012 4:28:15 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >>
> >> Let's get back to
> >> your claim that both Excel and Numbers get their trend lines wrong. LOL!
> >
> > Do you have a quote for that?
>
> You mean other than you repeatedly whining that the trend lines produced by
> Excel and Numbers are wrong? LOL!
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
>
> Hey, even though I owe you *nothing* to prove I am right, look at this:
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
>
> Yeah, both in Excel and Numbers the trend line is *exactly* as I show it to
> be.

Yes, Excel does exactly what you tell it to do, and nothing more. You do not know how to do a simple regression analysis with Excel. Now that you've finally revealed what you did to get the line, it's easy to see your lack of knowledge.

> > I have a quote of me saying you were using the tools incorrectly, not that the
> > tools were incorrect. I used Excel as well, but I know what I'm doing.
>
> Oh, by all means do post a video of you educating me on how to use these
> tools correctly. I would love to see that! I bet you have that video made
> by the end of the day, right?

You need a video when I gave you the steps I used already?

Do you not know how to set control limits? Do you not know what control limits are? Do you not know why you need control limits? If you're going to beg for my help in educating you then you need to ask more specific questions.

> LOL!
>

Indeed.

[DFS]

On 5/7/2012 3:54 PM, cc wrote:

> It's how you use the tools. Apparently you don't know how to use
> Excel. I used Excel to generate my lines (and really do the analysis
> for me) using your data. I know what I'm doing though. You just don't
> know how to use technology.

You can use Excel and macros to automate and present a spiffy ANOVA
analysis.

> Not surprising since this is not a very technical group.

Very true. Snit told us so.

[DFS]

On 5/7/2012 5:06 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> After swilling some grog, 7 belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/6/12 11:13 PM, in article ko5k79-...@sky.matrix, "Homer"
>>> <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Verily I say unto thee that 7 spake thusly:
>>>>>
>>>>> What the numbers are saying is that of all the net's users about 90%
>>>>> are windummies and apphol users but they are clicking more than their
>>>>> proportionate share
>>>>
>>>> A lot of it is probably Malware phoning home, which puts GNU/Linux at an
>>>> immediate disadvantage, since it tends not to suffer that affliction.
>>>
>>> Ah, so you think the stats for Android are grossly overrepresented as
>>> well.
>>>
>>> Right?
>>
>> You merely have tell us one currently active Android virus in the Android
>> market that is doing this grossness hallucination of yours seeing as they
>> remove it all within 5 minutes of having it reported,
>> and remove it from any machine that connects to the internet automatically.
>
> 7 exhibits more logic than Snit.

7 exhibits more dishonesty and hypocrisy than Snit.

7's claim of Android malware being removed in minutes is pure horseshit.

But you love him, Creepy.

> To tell you the truth, although there are exceptions, the "herd" is
> a more logical "herd". Also a more humorous "herd", and a more pleasant
> "herd".

The "herd" is a pack of sniveling, lying, whining, hypocritical wimps.

[Snit]

On 5/7/12 2:50 PM, in article
22914645.1242.1336427442118.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncd3, "cc"

<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, May 7, 2012 5:40:19 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 5/7/12 1:41 PM, in article
>> 2436931.401.1336423303193.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynff7, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, May 7, 2012 4:28:15 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Let's get back to
>>>> your claim that both Excel and Numbers get their trend lines wrong. LOL!
>>>
>>> Do you have a quote for that?
>>
>> You mean other than you repeatedly whining that the trend lines produced by
>> Excel and Numbers are wrong? LOL!
>>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
>>
>> Hey, even though I owe you *nothing* to prove I am right, look at this:
>>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
>>
>> Yeah, both in Excel and Numbers the trend line is *exactly* as I show it to
>> be.
>
> Yes, Excel does exactly what you tell it to do, and nothing more. You do not
> know how to do a simple regression analysis with Excel. Now that you've
> finally revealed what you did to get the line, it's easy to see your lack of
> knowledge.

LOL! So show your video of doing it right.

Wait. I did a linear trend line *exactly* as it should be done. Exactly.

Your claim that Excel and Pages do this incorrectly is *wrong*. You are,
again, pretending to have knowledge you do not have.

>>> I have a quote of me saying you were using the tools incorrectly, not that
>>> the tools were incorrect. I used Excel as well, but I know what I'm doing.
>>>
>> Oh, by all means do post a video of you educating me on how to use these
>> tools correctly. I would love to see that! I bet you have that video made
>> by the end of the day, right?
>
> You need a video when I gave you the steps I used already?

You cannot show how you would do it better because I - and Excel and Pages -
did it just fine.

You are simply whining now that you have - again - been proved wrong.

> Do you not know how to set control limits? Do you not know what control limits
> are? Do you not know why you need control limits? If you're going to beg for
> my help in educating you then you need to ask more specific questions.

I made a simple linear trend line. I never claimed it was anything else.

>> LOL!
>>
>
> Indeed.

[Snit]

On 5/7/12 4:13 PM, in article jo9ku6$8r4$1...@dont-email.me, "DFS"

<nos...@dfs.com> wrote:

> On 5/7/2012 3:54 PM, cc wrote:
>
>> It's how you use the tools. Apparently you don't know how to use
>> Excel. I used Excel to generate my lines (and really do the analysis
>> for me) using your data. I know what I'm doing though. You just don't
>> know how to use technology.
>
> You can use Excel and macros to automate and present a spiffy ANOVA
> analysis.

The topic was how to create a simple linear trend line in Excel and Pages.
I proved to cc I know exactly how to do so:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>

As is his norm, though, cc will never admit he is wrong, nor will he admit
which direction the trend line is going. By the way, that is his data I am
using - not the year-over-year industry standard I first used but his 24
month data he *asked* me to use:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>

Using his data he still insists that I somehow hand-picked the range. I
someone used mind control to make him select that range of data.

>> Not surprising since this is not a very technical group.
>
> Very true. Snit told us so.

Well, look at cc. Even making a simple linear trend line baffles him. He
just freaks out. This is not something that would be even slightly
challenging to him if he had *any* technical background.

[7]

Snit wrote:


>>>>> What the numbers are saying is that of all the net's users about 90%
>>>>> are windummies and apphol users but they are clicking more than their
>>>>> proportionate share
>>>>
>>>> A lot of it is probably Malware phoning home, which puts GNU/Linux at
>>>> an immediate disadvantage, since it tends not to suffer that
>>>> affliction.
>>>
>>> Ah, so you think the stats for Android are grossly overrepresented as
>>> well.
>>>
>>> Right?
>>
>>
>> You merely have tell us one currently active Android virus in the Android
>> market that is doing this grossness hallucination of yours seeing as they
>> remove it all within 5 minutes of having it reported,
>> and remove it from any machine that connects to the internet
>> automatically.
>>
> You are claiming malware is removed that quickly.
>
> LOL!
>
> No. Now you are just making things up. Again.

You notice we are all still waiting
so you will prove your hallucinatory claims
by naming one if not MANY Android
malware is still active in Android repository
instead of repeating your hallucinations.

[DFS]

Piss off, fraud.

Last time you spewed this horseshit I showed you the Android malware
that was still in place 2 days later.

You ran away like the lying skunk you are.

[bbgruff]

On Monday 07 May 2012 19:55 Snit wrote:

> You current whine is they are not selling the version of Linux you want
> them to.

No Snit.
DO try to read what people write before you respond.
Nobody is whining, except you.

As far as that link is concerned, my contention is that it's 5 years old.
i.e. they are no longer selling them.

If a consumer wishes to buy from Dell, Lenovo, HP or Acer, he buys with
Windows installed.
There is NO option NOT to buy with Windows.

[Snit]

On 5/7/12 5:15 PM, in article a0r6sd...@mid.individual.net, "bbgruff"

Goodness, you are just clueless... OK, I owe you nothing - remember that -
but I am a nice guy (and it fun to prove you wrong):

<http://goo.gl/TfPnj>

Look on the left of the page. What do *you* see under "Operating System"?
Come on, now, do not be shy... list the options. Ah, yes: "FreeDOS and
Linux" are listed. Right there.

But you say such options do not exist.

But they do. Deal with it.

Not let's pretend that they did not. Who cares? At one time they certainly
did... and Dell has no obligation to sell you a system with Linux or FreeDOS
or without an OS. They can include Windows on all their systems and there
would be *nothing* wrong with that. Not a thing.

>>> The fact is, whatever you say, that as far as the consumer is concerned, and
>>> amongst the big manufacturers, the option is Windows or Windows.
>>>
>> Wrong. Macs are also a pretty big option. There are no other options which
>> have shown themselves to be commercially viable. No boogieman needed to
>> understand that!

Hey, you never responded to this. Yeah, obviously I was right... and you
are not going to admit to that!

>>> Why the hell do you keep denying the situation?
>>>
>> I am denying nothing. I am not the one who is claiming that Linux is
>> commercially viable (other than from niche providers). That is you... and
>> now you are whining that you cannot find any evidence to support this claim
>> of yours so you want my help to show where Dell and HP and the like sell
>> Linux systems.
>>
>> As you have noted, where Linux is commercially viable, for corporate needs
>> (largely server needs), Dell and the like *do* provide it. The boogieman
>> does not stop them.
>>
>> So your complain is nothing more than whining that desktop Linux is not
>> commercially viable - other than as sold in some niches by small companies.
>> And I agree this is a problem - one I, Shuttleworth, Zemlin and others who
>> are fans of Linux and OSS have all talked about.

And no comment on you from this. Yeah, your big whine: Linux is just not
commercially viable on the desktop except as a small niche player. Well, I
agree... that sucks. I want to see the situation improve and have written
about some of the things needed to help it improve.

>>> I'm not even arguing that the situation is good or bad, just telling you
>>> what the facts are, and you remain in denial.
>>>
>> You are making things up. I am letting you know that just so you do not
>> think you are getting away with it without it being noticed. :)

Do you see now how your claim that Dell does not sell systems without
Windows is just a complete and utter fabrication on your part? Again: it is
not as if they are obligated to or that there would be anything wrong with
it if they stopped - I am very pro-choice and think it is their right to
sell whatever type systems they think serve them and their customers best.
But your BS about them not selling systems with Linux... can't you at least
admit that your claim has been completely proved wrong?

[GreyCloud]

Don't let jayne catch you sniffing that glue.

[cc]

On Monday, May 7, 2012 7:24:18 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> I made a simple linear trend line. I never claimed it was anything else.
>

You made the simplest linear trend line possible, which is NOT the standard way of doing it. I made a simple linear trend line that is the CORRECT way of doing things (and is incredibly easy in Excel). That is why my trendline is actually predictive while yours is pure bullshit.

How many times did you claim I don't know anything about statistics, and yet you're going to do some bullshit and try to claim it's correct? You'd be laughed out of any stats class. Now you want me to educate you on how to do a proper (yet incredibly simple) regression analysis? Pathetic.

[cc]

On Monday, May 7, 2012 7:13:05 PM UTC-4, DFS wrote:
> On 5/7/2012 3:54 PM, cc wrote:
>
> > It's how you use the tools. Apparently you don't know how to use
> > Excel. I used Excel to generate my lines (and really do the analysis
> > for me) using your data. I know what I'm doing though. You just don't
> > know how to use technology.
>
>
> You can use Excel and macros to automate and present a spiffy ANOVA
> analysis.
>

That's the thing, it's so easy to do it right. I spent all of 2 minutes verifying Snit's results using Excel, and surprise, surprise, when done correctly Linux is flatlined.

>
> > Not surprising since this is not a very technical group.
>
>
> Very true. Snit told us so.

[cc]

On Monday, May 7, 2012 7:33:03 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
>
> Even making a simple linear trend line baffles him.

Yes, it baffles me why you wouldn't do the minimum work necessary to do a proper regression analysis, especially when Excel can take care of all of it for you. You're pathetic attempt at statistical analysis has made my week though. Please keep the videos coming. Can I make a request? I'd love to see you do PCA.

[Snit]

On 5/8/12 5:19 AM, in article
7539826.1579.1336479568328.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynff7, "cc"

<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, May 7, 2012 7:24:18 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> I made a simple linear trend line. I never claimed it was anything else.
>
> You made the simplest linear trend line possible, which is NOT the standard
> way of doing it. I made a simple linear trend line that is the CORRECT way of
> doing things (and is incredibly easy in Excel). That is why my trendline is
> actually predictive while yours is pure bullshit.
>
> How many times did you claim I don't know anything about statistics, and yet
> you're going to do some bullshit and try to claim it's correct? You'd be
> laughed out of any stats class. Now you want me to educate you on how to do a
> proper (yet incredibly simple) regression analysis? Pathetic.

First you are not happy with the data set used... even though you selected
it.

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>

Then you are not happy with how the trend line is made... even though I used
both Excel and Pages and used their common method of making linear trend
lines. And you whine that they are not correct - that the way they do
things, at least by default, is just wrong.

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>

I ask two questions in that video:

Q1: In relation to Excel: is the trend line it calculated, using its
standard methods (as shown in the video), going up, down, or showing no
change?

Q2: In relation to Excel: is the trend line it calculated, using its
standard methods (as shown in the video), going up, down, or showing no
change?

Notice how you will not answer. You know you are wrong. Poor you... unable
to admit you are wrong.

As noted - you are not "discussing" this in good faith - you are just lying
and refusing to admit to even basic facts. You *love* to pretend you are
knowledgeable in areas where you are completely clueless.

[Snit]

On 5/8/12 5:28 AM, in article
122408.135.1336480121269.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yngt8, "cc"

<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, May 7, 2012 7:13:05 PM UTC-4, DFS wrote:
>> On 5/7/2012 3:54 PM, cc wrote:
>>
>>> It's how you use the tools. Apparently you don't know how to use
>>> Excel. I used Excel to generate my lines (and really do the analysis
>>> for me) using your data. I know what I'm doing though. You just don't
>>> know how to use technology.
>>
>>
>> You can use Excel and macros to automate and present a spiffy ANOVA
>> analysis.
>>
>
> That's the thing, it's so easy to do it right. I spent all of 2 minutes
> verifying Snit's results using Excel, and surprise, surprise, when done
> correctly Linux is flatlined.

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>

I ask two questions in that video:

Q1: In relation to Excel: is the trend line it calculated, using its
standard methods (as shown in the video), going up, down, or showing no
change?

Q2: In relation to Excel: is the trend line it calculated, using its
standard methods (as shown in the video), going up, down, or showing no
change?

Notice how you will not answer. You know you are wrong. Poor you... unable
to admit you are wrong.

As noted - you are not "discussing" this in good faith - you are just lying
and refusing to admit to even basic facts. You *love* to pretend you are
knowledgeable in areas where you are completely clueless.

[Snit]

On 5/8/12 5:43 AM, in article
27924418.427.1336481038122.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yndm3, "cc"

<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, May 7, 2012 7:33:03 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> Even making a simple linear trend line baffles him.
>
> Yes, it baffles me why you wouldn't do the minimum work necessary to do a
> proper regression analysis, especially when Excel can take care of all of it
> for you. You're pathetic attempt at statistical analysis has made my week
> though. Please keep the videos coming. Can I make a request? I'd love to see
> you do PCA.

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>

I ask two questions in that video:

Q1: In relation to Excel: is the trend line it calculated,
using its standard methods (as shown in the video), going up,
down, or showing no change?

Q2: In relation to Excel: is the trend line it calculated,
using its standard methods (as shown in the video), going up,
down, or showing no change?

Notice how you will not answer. You know you are wrong. Poor you... unable
to admit you are wrong.

As noted - you are not "discussing" this in good faith - you are just lying
and refusing to admit to even basic facts. You *love* to pretend you are
knowledgeable in areas where you are completely clueless.

[Snit]

On 5/8/12 5:19 AM, in article
7539826.1579.1336479568328.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynff7, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, May 7, 2012 7:24:18 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> I made a simple linear trend line. I never claimed it was anything else.
>
> You made the simplest linear trend line possible, which is NOT the standard
> way of doing it. I made a simple linear trend line that is the CORRECT way of
> doing things (and is incredibly easy in Excel). That is why my trendline is
> actually predictive while yours is pure bullshit.
>
> How many times did you claim I don't know anything about statistics, and yet
> you're going to do some bullshit and try to claim it's correct? You'd be
> laughed out of any stats class. Now you want me to educate you on how to do a
> proper (yet incredibly simple) regression analysis? Pathetic.

First you are not happy with the data set used... even though you selected
it.

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>

Then you are not happy with how the trend line is made... even though I used
both Excel and Pages and used their common method of making linear trend
lines. And you whine that they are not correct - that the way they do
things, at least by default, is just wrong.

So now (according to you), not only am *I* wrong to use the data *you* asked
me to use, you are pushing the idea that *both* Excel and Pages are wrong in
how they calculate trend lines. And you expect to be taken seriously. LOL!

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>

I ask two questions in that video:

Q1: In relation to Excel: is the trend line it calculated,
using its standard methods (as shown in the video), going up,
down, or showing no change?

Q2: In relation to Pages: is the trend line it calculated,

using its standard methods (as shown in the video), going up,
down, or showing no change?

Notice how you will not answer. You know you are wrong. Poor you... unable
to admit you are wrong.

As noted - you are not "discussing" this in good faith - you are just lying
and refusing to admit to even basic facts. You *love* to pretend you are
knowledgeable in areas where you are completely clueless.

[Homer]

Snit snivelled:

> On 5/6/12 11:13 PM, in article ko5k79-...@sky.matrix, "Homer"
> <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee that 7 spake thusly:
>>>
>>> What the numbers are saying is that of all the net's users about 90%
>>> are windummies and apphol users but they are clicking more than
>>> their proportionate share
>>
>> A lot of it is probably Malware phoning home, which puts GNU/Linux at
>> an immediate disadvantage, since it tends not to suffer that
>> affliction.
>
> Ah, so you think the stats for Android are grossly overrepresented as
> well.

The stats for Android's market share are based on actual sales, not a
handful of anonymous Websites.

Surely even someone as stupid as you understands the difference.

--
K. | "You see? You cannot kill me. There is no flesh
http://slated.org | and blood within this cloak to kill. There is
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | only an idea. And ideas are bulletproof."
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 91 days | ~ V for Vendetta.

[Snit]

On 5/8/12 7:14 AM, in article nbmn79-...@sky.matrix, "Homer"

<use...@slated.org> wrote:

> Snit snivelled:
>> On 5/6/12 11:13 PM, in article ko5k79-...@sky.matrix, "Homer"
>> <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>>> Verily I say unto thee that 7 spake thusly:
>>>>
>>>> What the numbers are saying is that of all the net's users about 90%
>>>> are windummies and apphol users but they are clicking more than
>>>> their proportionate share
>>>
>>> A lot of it is probably Malware phoning home, which puts GNU/Linux at
>>> an immediate disadvantage, since it tends not to suffer that
>>> affliction.
>>
>> Ah, so you think the stats for Android are grossly overrepresented as
>> well.
>
> The stats for Android's market share are based on actual sales, not a
> handful of anonymous Websites.

The context was web stats. And you think those are grossly overrepresented.

Right?

Or are you going to just keep running from the question?

[Hadron]

Homer <use...@slated.org> writes:

> Snit snivelled:
>> On 5/6/12 11:13 PM, in article ko5k79-...@sky.matrix, "Homer"
>> <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>>> Verily I say unto thee that 7 spake thusly:
>>>>
>>>> What the numbers are saying is that of all the net's users about 90%
>>>> are windummies and apphol users but they are clicking more than
>>>> their proportionate share
>>>
>>> A lot of it is probably Malware phoning home, which puts GNU/Linux at
>>> an immediate disadvantage, since it tends not to suffer that
>>> affliction.
>>
>> Ah, so you think the stats for Android are grossly overrepresented as
>> well.
>
> The stats for Android's market share are based on actual sales, not a
> handful of anonymous Websites.
>
> Surely even someone as stupid as you understands the difference.

And surely even someone as much of a dumbarse as you can see that no one
cares for any number except those which generate income and cause net
traffic?

Meanwhile:-

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303592404577363331135075586.html
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/iphone_4s_sales_record_1_million.php
http://9to5mac.com/2011/09/22/survey-89-percent-iphone-users-loyal-one-in-three-android-users-likely-to-switch-to-apple/
http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/nokias-new-lumia-900-windows-phone-tops-amazon-sales-1075315

You really are an idiot Homer.

I bet you dont even have a smartphone and have "never seen one in the
wild" eh?

LOL, youre insane.

[cc]

On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 10:02:34 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 5/8/12 5:43 AM, in article
> 27924418.427.1336481038122.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yndm3, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, May 7, 2012 7:33:03 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Even making a simple linear trend line baffles him.
> >
> > Yes, it baffles me why you wouldn't do the minimum work necessary to do a
> > proper regression analysis, especially when Excel can take care of all of it
> > for you. You're pathetic attempt at statistical analysis has made my week
> > though. Please keep the videos coming. Can I make a request? I'd love to see
> > you do PCA.
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
>
> I ask two questions in that video:
>
> Q1: In relation to Excel: is the trend line it calculated,
> using its standard methods (as shown in the video), going up,
> down, or showing no change?
>
> Q2: In relation to Excel: is the trend line it calculated,
> using its standard methods (as shown in the video), going up,
> down, or showing no change?
>

You questions are invalid as you did not use "standard methods." So in relation to your misuse of Excel: The trendline you had Excel calculate using invalid methods because you don't know how to do a proper analysis in Excel, is totally meaningless, an inaccurate representation, would receive the grade of an F in any stats class, not predictive, and going up.

Do you think you did a standard analysis on the data?

[Snit]

On 5/8/12 9:31 AM, in article
9417416.941.1336494683702.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbq3, "cc"

<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 10:02:34 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 5/8/12 5:43 AM, in article
>> 27924418.427.1336481038122.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yndm3, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, May 7, 2012 7:33:03 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Even making a simple linear trend line baffles him.
>>>
>>> Yes, it baffles me why you wouldn't do the minimum work necessary to do a
>>> proper regression analysis, especially when Excel can take care of all of it
>>> for you. You're pathetic attempt at statistical analysis has made my week
>>> though. Please keep the videos coming. Can I make a request? I'd love to see
>>> you do PCA.
>>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
>>
>> I ask two questions in that video:
>>
>> Q1: In relation to Excel: is the trend line it calculated,
>> using its standard methods (as shown in the video), going up,
>> down, or showing no change?
>>
>> Q2: In relation to Excel: is the trend line it calculated,
>> using its standard methods (as shown in the video), going up,
>> down, or showing no change?

And you have no answer. You just run.

The reason is clear: obviously the trend is upward, contrary to the claim
you made even after being shown the video:

cc:
-----
there was obviously no upward trend
-----

Of course there is an upward trend shown in those trend lines. You know it.
I know it. You know I know you know it.

But as is your norm you will never admit to it - no matter how obviously and
extremely wrong you are, you will never admit to your errors, no matter how
extreme.

As noted: you are not arguing in good faith - you are just openly lying.

Below you blame Excel and Pages for *both* using something other than
"standard methods". Yeah: both Apple and MS get it completely wrong and
you, with your massive brain, have figured this out while the rest of the
world sits in ignorance.

No. Not even you can believe something as stupid as what you are pushing.
You are lying. It is that simple.

> You questions are invalid as you did not use "standard methods." So in
> relation to your misuse of Excel: The trendline you had Excel calculate using
> invalid methods because you don't know how to do a proper analysis in Excel,
> is totally meaningless, an inaccurate representation, would receive the grade
> of an F in any stats class, not predictive, and going up.
>
> Do you think you did a standard analysis on the data?
>



--

[cc]

On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 12:41:43 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
>
> Below you blame Excel and Pages for *both* using something other than
> "standard methods".

Incorrect. You keep repeating that, but that is not what I'm saying, at all. Both are doing exactly what you tell them to do. What YOU are telling them to do is not standard, and not even an analysis. There are a vast number of tutorials online for the correct way of doing it in Excel (possibly for Pages, but I haven't looked). You don't know how to use technology to your advantage, and you end up with a shitty... well it's not even an analysis. You're just not very technical I guess.

You and Hadron would be laughed out of any stats class for this idiocy.

--
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov> - Snit's ignorance of Excel and his hilarious attempt at statistical analysis

[Snit]

On 5/8/12 9:50 AM, in article
4028886.988.1336495816233.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynje14, "cc"

<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 12:41:43 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> Below you blame Excel and Pages for *both* using something other than
>> "standard methods".
>
> Incorrect.

So you admit you are wrong and that the trend line, using the standard
methods of Excel and Pages, is going up.

Excellent. Good to see you finally admit to that. Though you will back
pedal on it because you are lying scum who is merely trolling and angry you
have been proved wrong time and time again.

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>

I mean, really, in the face of these facts - solid irrefutable facts - you
will not admit the trend line *of that data* is clearly moving upward.

You just cannot... because you are a trolling idiot.

There is nothing else to add to the discussion. So feel free to get the
last word. If you make it a good one you might amuse me enough to reply,
but basically your idiotic denial of such solid facts is boring. Move on
and find a new trolling routine.

> You keep repeating that, but that is not what I'm saying, at all.

You contradict yourself so much that what you claim you have said is
irrelevant. The fact is, the trend line, as shown in these links above, is
moving up. This is not something that is debatable. You are simply an
idiot trolling for attention as you pretend to disagree.

> Both are doing exactly what you tell them to do.

And, as shown, they are being "told" to produce a linear trend line based on
the data. And that trend line is going up. Period.

And you know it. But you are a lying, trolling, idiot so you will not admit
to it.

> What YOU are telling them to do is not standard,

And in this you are completely wrong.

Excel:
* <http://wp.me/pjfeo-8Oe>: shows an alternate way to get to the exact same
tool I used... with the exact same results. Do you need a video to see that
it is the same? I assure you it is... *exact* same results. I can also
create the same trend line with a menu option. Do you need to see that?
Are you really going to push some idiotic claim that the trend lines will be
different depending on if you use the right click method, the ribbon, or the
toolbar? If not, well, then I used the "standard" method.

Numbers:
* <http://goo.gl/Mdlvo>: Exact method I used. You cannot even whine that I
used a different method to get to the exact same tool.

So there you go: the "standard" way to make trend lines in Excel and Numbers
- which is to do what I showed you.

You idiot.

But feel free to show the "better" way in Excel. Make a video and post it.
I look forward to you showing your brilliant method where you prove that
both Apple and MS get this completely wrong.

...

[cc]

On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 1:33:50 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 5/8/12 9:50 AM, in article
> 4028886.988.1336495816233.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynje14, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > What YOU are telling them to do is not standard,
>
> And in this you are completely wrong.

Nope.

> Excel:
> * <http://wp.me/pjfeo-8Oe>: shows an alternate way to get to the exact same
> tool I used... with the exact same results. Do you need a video to see that
> it is the same? I assure you it is... *exact* same results. I can also
> create the same trend line with a menu option. Do you need to see that?
> Are you really going to push some idiotic claim that the trend lines will be
> different depending on if you use the right click method, the ribbon, or the
> toolbar? If not, well, then I used the "standard" method.

LOL! Yes, those are the simple directions for adding a trendline (same as below). There are many more complicated possibilities not mentioned. Also, those are not directions on how to do a proper analysis on your data before coming up with a trendline. There are tutorials out there on how to do a proper statistical analysis and get a correct trendline using Excel and other applications.

> Numbers:
> * <http://goo.gl/Mdlvo>: Exact method I used. You cannot even whine that I
> used a different method to get to the exact same tool.
>

> So there you go: the "standard" way to make trend lines in Excel and Numbers
> - which is to do what I showed you.
>

LOL! The "standard" way to add trend lines to an Excel chart is not the same as the "standard" way to do an analysis to come up with the correct trend line. How did you determine that a linear trend line was the way to go? Or because Excel highlights that option, did you think it was "standard?"

> You idiot.

You don't even understand the basics, apparently.

> But feel free to show the "better" way in Excel.

I have given you more than an enough info for you to look up and duplicate what I did in Excel.

> Make a video and post it.
> I look forward to you showing your brilliant method where you prove that
> both Apple and MS get this completely wrong.
>

Apple and MS aren't the culprits. You asked them how to add a trendline, and they showed you, but unfortunately for you that wasn't the right question. If you search for doing a statistical analysis (pick your favorite, but choose wisely) in Excel, then you'll get what you're looking for. It involves a little more than highlighting some cells, inserting a chart, and adding a trendline, but not much more!

You keep running, but do you think your method would be acceptable for a college level statistics course?

[Snit]

On 5/8/12 11:39 AM, in article
18602578.736.1336502388087.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbp1, "cc"

<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The "standard" way to add trend lines to an Excel chart is not the same as the
> "standard" way to do an analysis to come up with the correct trend line.

As noted: you are claiming Excel and Pages are wrong in how they do a linear
trend line.

You are an idiot.

And, yes, I snipped your off topic BS and your repeated lies. As noted:
they are boring. The bottom line is I proved myself right:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>

You have *nothing* to counter that with except to claim that I was wrong to
use the data you asked me to and I was wrong to trust Excel and Pages in how
they make linear trend lines because you have figured out that they are
wrong and you are right.

You are an unbelievable idiot... and a liar.

[cc]

On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 2:44:21 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 5/8/12 11:39 AM, in article
> 18602578.736.1336502388087.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbp1, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The "standard" way to add trend lines to an Excel chart is not the same as the
> > "standard" way to do an analysis to come up with the correct trend line.
>
> As noted: you are claiming Excel and Pages are wrong in how they do a linear
> trend line.

As noted: that is not what I'm saying at all. What you are feeding to Excel and Pages to make the trendline is INCORRECT. You've done no analysis on the data, and you're not properly limiting.

I've pointed this out to you multiple times. I am not claiming Excel and Pages are incorrect. You are now openly lying.

I used Excel. I used Excel correctly. I followed the directions you linked to for adding a trendline, and came up with a correct trendline. You are either stupid, or willfully lying now. There are plenty of tutorials (some with video!) out there on how to do it correctly. You are skipping very crucial steps, either on purpose or because you're stupid. I do not care which it is, but anyone can do a simple search to see why your video is hilarious.

[Snit]

On 5/8/12 11:39 AM, in article
18602578.736.1336502388087.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbp1, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Apple and MS aren't the culprits.

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>

So you agree with their trend line - based on he data you asked me to use.
And doing the graph the way you asked (you did not ask me to change how I
was doing the graphing or producing the trend line until after you realized
it, too, proved you wrong).

The bottom line is I use year-over-year data and it proved you wrong. You
got pissed and made up a story about me using "arbitrary" data, as if using
a years' worth of data is non-standard. Still, you asked me to extend it to
24 months and do the same type of analysis - you thought it would show
something other than it did.

But it *still* proved you wrong. So you got more angry. You increased your
lying about me and you increased the insanity of your claims. You freaked
out. Once again, the mean ol' Snit - using facts and data and evidence -
proved you wrong. And this clearly is not something you can stand.

This is well documented in the two above links and the link in my .sig:
<http://goo.gl/a45Rm>

You *are* a liar and an you are simply not willing to admit you were wrong.

It is *that* simple. And it is the same dance we dance over and over. You
desperately try to prove me wrong over and over and only to find that facts
and data and evidence and even your hand-picked experts all support my views
and denounce yours. So you then lie even more and make up quotes and
attribute them to me and to your hand-picked experts, claiming they have
emailed you and denounced their public stances. And you brag about emailing
my employer and even claim to get a response only to later deny you ever
made such a claim. You just cannot help yourself from lying.

Utter insanity. You simply are scum. And the best part of that: you know
it. You get to live it.

And I get to go on being honest and honorable and using data and evidence
and logic to prove you wrong... and laugh at your pathetic antics.

Have a great day.

[Snit]

On 5/8/12 11:52 AM, in article
31093981.61.1336503165296.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynjj16, "cc"

<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 2:44:21 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 5/8/12 11:39 AM, in article
>> 18602578.736.1336502388087.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbp1, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The "standard" way to add trend lines to an Excel chart is not the same as
>>> the
>>> "standard" way to do an analysis to come up with the correct trend line.
>
>>
>> As noted: you are claiming Excel and Pages are wrong in how they do a linear
>> trend line.
>
> As noted: that is not what I'm saying at all.

So you agree that the trend line goes up. Great.

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>

Given how I proved it, good to see you finally acknowledge you have been
wrong about it this whole time.

But here it comes: cc's flip flop where he will insist that the standard
ways Excel and Pages make linear trend lines actually is wrong and cc has
figured this out while the rest of the world remains ignorant of this.

My goodness, cc, you are an idiot.

[Snit]

On 5/8/12 11:52 AM, in article
31093981.61.1336503165296.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynjj16, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> What you are feeding to Excel and Pages to make the trendline is INCORRECT.

Except I already showed you the evidence that I am doing it correctly.

You ignore that.

You lie about that. You are a liar.

[Snit]

On 5/8/12 11:52 AM, in article
31093981.61.1336503165296.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynjj16, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> You've done no analysis on the data, and you're not properly limiting.

I did a simple linear trend line. As I said. And as you asked me to do
with the 24 months of data after I did so with 12 months.

Face it: you were proved wrong. Now you cry.

[Snit]

On 5/8/12 11:52 AM, in article
31093981.61.1336503165296.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynjj16, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I am not claiming Excel and Pages are incorrect.

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>

Good, then you agree the trend line is going up for the data range I used
and the later one you asked me to use.

I am happy to see you admit your denials of this was utterly wrong. Good
for you.

But here comes your flip flop. 100% predictable.

[Snit]

On 5/8/12 11:52 AM, in article
31093981.61.1336503165296.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynjj16, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I used Excel. I used Excel correctly.

And the video of this is...???

Come on: it is trivial to show your work. So show it. Show making a linear
trend line using the tools in Excel. And show how you come up with a
different result than the one you already admitted was correct

cc:
-----

I am not claiming Excel and Pages are incorrect.

-----

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>

Boom. If Excel and Pages are correct in their making of trend lines then it
is clear the trend line goes up, given the data used.

But you hate that. And it makes me laugh at you.

[cc]

On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 3:05:33 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 5/8/12 11:52 AM, in article
> 31093981.61.1336503165296.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynjj16, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I used Excel. I used Excel correctly.
>
> And the video of this is...???

Kinky. You are obsessed with me making a video. You're going to be an ass and lie repeatedly, and now you want me to make a video educating you on how to do a proper analysis when I've already given you all the info you require?

> Come on: it is trivial to show your work. So show it. Show making a linear
> trend line using the tools in Excel.

I've shown my work multiple times now. You have the data. I gave you the average and standard deviation. I told you my control limits. You just have no idea why that is relevant. Are you incapable of doing a google search?

> And show how you come up with a
> different result than the one you already admitted was correct
>

See, there you go lying again. You put some data in Excel, charted it, then added a trendline. We all see that. The fact that you documented it in a video is priceless. What you fail to see is that although Excel added a trendline to your data, you have seriously fucked up and forgotten (or more likely you never knew in the first place) to do many things.

Again, I ask why you even chose a linear trend line in the first place (the only correct decision you've made)? Is it because Excel highlighted that option, and you think it's the "standard?"

[Snit]

On 5/8/12 12:21 PM, in article
26521505.615.1336504913407.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynja13, "cc"

<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 3:05:33 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 5/8/12 11:52 AM, in article
>> 31093981.61.1336503165296.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynjj16, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I used Excel. I used Excel correctly.
>>
>> And the video of this is...???
>
> Kinky.

You make "kinky" videos you want me to see.

No thanks.

--
"I find prostitution repulsive, therefore I think it should be illegal." -cc

[cc]

On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 3:33:31 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 5/8/12 12:21 PM, in article
> 26521505.615.1336504913407.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynja13, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 3:05:33 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >> On 5/8/12 11:52 AM, in article
> >> 31093981.61.1336503165296.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynjj16, "cc"
> >> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I used Excel. I used Excel correctly.
> >>
> >> And the video of this is...???
> >
> > Kinky.
>
> You make "kinky" videos you want me to see.
>
> No thanks.
>

So you finally figured out how wrong you were I see (evidenced by the complete snip and run). Good, I'm glad I could help. Maybe Hadron will understand now too. Perhaps you can remove him from your anus and give him the heads up, that you totally fucked up your analysis. I'm pleased you learned a little bit, but the video is going to have to stay in the .sig for while. It's just too hilarious.

[Snit]

On 5/8/12 12:51 PM, in article
25652113.673.1336506668696.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynja13, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

...

>>>>> I used Excel. I used Excel correctly.
>>>>
>>>> And the video of this is...???
>>>
>>> Kinky.
>>
>> You make "kinky" videos you want me to see.
>>
>> No thanks.
>
> So you finally figured out how wrong you were I see (evidenced by the complete
> snip and run).

You have been snipping and running the whole time. I have made it clear: I
am not going to engage your lies as much as I have been - I am simply going
to repeat the truth and watch you squirm and cry.

> Good, I'm glad I could help. Maybe Hadron will understand now too. Perhaps you
> can remove him from your anus and give him the heads up, that you totally
> fucked up your analysis. I'm pleased you learned a little bit, but the video
> is going to have to stay in the .sig for while. It's just too hilarious.

As discussed to death, you are lying. Period. Remember, the facts are
clear:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>

The linear trend lines, during the data ranges looked at (both yours and
mine), is going up. There is no doubt about this nor argument against it.
It is simply a fact. And you flip flop on whether you think Excel and Pages
are doing linear trend lines in the correct (or "standard") method or not:

cc #1: defending Excel / Pages for using the standard way to come up
with the trend line being discussed (a linear trend line):
-----

| Below you blame Excel and Pages for *both* using something other
| than "standard methods".
Incorrect.

-----

cc #2: denying that Excel does a tend line in the "standard" way, and
by extension, Pages since it comes up with the same result:
-----

The "standard" way to add trend lines to an Excel chart is not the
same as the "standard" way to do an analysis to come up with the
correct trend line.

-----

So once again you flip flop and lie and spew nonsense - all because you know
you are wrong. But maybe I will string you along to see how many times you
lie about this.


--
"There's a mountain of evidence that I've committed forgeries." - cc

[bbgruff]

On Tuesday 08 May 2012 02:04 Snit wrote:

> Goodness, you are just clueless... OK, I owe you nothing - remember that -
> but I am a nice guy (and it fun to prove you wrong):
>
> <http://goo.gl/TfPnj>
>
> Look on the left of the page. What do you see under "Operating System"?
> Come on, now, do not be shy... list the options. Ah, yes: "FreeDOS and
> Linux" are listed. Right there.
>
> But you say such options do not exist.
>
> But they do. Deal with it.

Well, I did do a bit of "dealing with it" - and thanks for the link.
Three weeks now, and this is all you can show - an obscure corner of the
BUSINESS site for Dell U.S.?

I just took one example properly - try others if you wish, because this
could be the exception, but I think did see other similar examples:-

Optiplex 390 N
Intel 2120
16X DVD
HD Graphics 2000
250GB HD
2GB RAM.

WITHOUT Windows (FreeDOS) = $623

WITH Windows (same spec) = $439

Come on Snit - SURE they sell it without Windows, but for $184 I'm sure that
your local computer shop would be quite willing to reformat a disk!
How about being serious? I mean, 42% MORE to have FreeDOS rather than
Windows????

[cc]

No it's not. You fucked up big time, and you don't even realize it.

> And you flip flop on whether you think Excel and Pages
> are doing linear trend lines in the correct (or "standard") method or not:
>

No I'm not. I'm pointing out your incorrect input is all. You're just dumb.

We both started with the same data set, we both did a least squares regression line, and yet yours is horribly fucked up. I will gladly educate your ignorant ass, and give you step by step instructions on how to correctly do it so you can see all your missing steps, but first you have to stop lying. You have to give a true and factual recap of my argument against your trendline with no editorializing and no lies. For instance none of this nonsense that I've said Apple or Microsoft made a mistake, because I simply never said that. So if you can actually write a fully factual post summarizing my problems with your shitty analysis, then I will show you what you missed (although I've already pointed it out numerous times) and give you step by step instructions for doing it correctly in Excel. If you don't want to, then you can remain ignorant.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, bbgruff belched this bit o' wisdom:

Holy crap! No wonder Linux can't make it for small businesses and
consumers at DELL!

I'll bet Snit feels like a burnt biscuit now!

Let's see, we have the following obsessions of "Hadron" that are shared
by Lying Larry:

- 4-year degrees
- Windows jobs that advocates have
- An overweening concern about "liars and frauds"
- A fear that "freetards" will "steal" your code, that GPL code
is "dumping", and that we think it is wrong for a company to make
a profit
- A stealth love for Windows and Microsoft
- A belief that Linux on the desktop isn't "viable"
- Roy

--
Except that Roy does not post interesting articles. Looking at the ten
busiest articles (threads) from last week we get: . . . Not a single one of
these threads was started by Roy. Not one. If you take his shill Mark Kent
out of the stats, on average Roy's posts average less than one response per
post. How is that intersting? (Unless of course you personally find lies
and misleading articles interesting.) This is clearly Roy's job and
wjbell shouldn't try to take over his monopoly. He spent the last year of
his life wandering COLA with the sandwich board around his neck telling
everyone that Microsoft is collapsing and that the "End is Near" for them.
Given that every quarter MSFT makes more Billions than the previous quarter,
Roy is about as credible as that dishevelled guy wandering around.
-- Larry Qualig, http://help.lockergnome.com/linux/wjbellftopic-385547-days0-orderasc-20.html

[Steve Carroll]

On May 8, 12:58 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 5/8/12 11:39 AM, in article
> 18602578.736.1336502388087.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbp1, "cc"
>

> <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Apple and MS aren't the culprits.
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
>

> So you agree with theirtrendline - based on he data you asked me to use.

> And doing the graph the way you asked (you did not ask me to change how I

> was doing the graphing or producing thetrendline until after you realized

> it, too, proved you wrong).
>
> The bottom line is I use year-over-year data and it proved you wrong.

Hmmm... (RMS;) Anyway, he was right that adding an extra data point is
a good idea, though, I don't know if he said it in relation to YOY;
that's really where it's applicable.

[bbgruff]

Hi Chris - I've seen this sort of thing before.
In fact, DFS has raised similar wrt Dell in this group in the past.
What seems to happen is that Dell DOES offer SOME models with either Linux
or FreeDOS, *but* these are never "on offer" , and when you see Dell
products *without* Windows, there always seems to be an offer on the Windows
version of that product.
That is certainly the case with the ones that Snit directed me to.

Apart from netbooks (in days gone by) I have yet to see Dell offering any
non-Windows model at a price less than the same-spec Windows version.

Pretty obviously, one is better off buying the Windows version and
overwriting it!

[Snit]

On 5/8/12 2:30 PM, in article
21795241.1002.1336512625497.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynei13, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

...

>> As discussed to death, you are lying. Period. Remember, the facts are
>> clear:
>>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
>>
>> The linear trend lines, during the data ranges looked at (both yours and
>> mine), is going up. There is no doubt about this nor argument against it.
>
>> It is simply a fact.
>
> No it's not. You fucked up big time, and you don't even realize it.
>
>> And you flip flop on whether you think Excel and Pages
>> are doing linear trend lines in the correct (or "standard") method or not:
>
> No I'm not. I'm pointing out your incorrect input is all. You're just dumb.
>
> We both started with the same data set, we both did a least squares regression
> line, and yet yours is horribly fucked up.

I never once mentioned the phrase "least squares regression line", though if
you want to know more about that term, check out this: <http://goo.gl/sQPIk>

Well what do you know - the trend line Excel and Numbers generate is just
what you are looking for. But you say that is incorrect - you say Excel and
Numbers lead to a result that is "horribly fucked up" when they produce
their trend lines.

> I will gladly educate your ignorant ass, and give you step by step
> instructions on how to correctly do it so you can see all your missing steps,
> but first you have to stop lying.

I have already shown you the steps - including in my own video and in the
link, above. When asked to show what you think are the "right" steps, you
babble about if you were to show how you got your results the video would be
"kinky". Ick. We are talking about simple, non-sexual data here. I do not
want to know what kinky stuff you are into. And you whine and lie and spew
accusations.

In other words: you know you have nothing of value to add.

> You have to give a true and factual recap of my argument against your
> trendline with no editorializing and no lies. For instance none of this
> nonsense that I've said Apple or Microsoft made a mistake, because I simply
> never said that.

Above you note how you think they do so incorrectly, even calling it
"horribly fucked up", and in the past you said the following

cc #1: defending Excel / Pages for using the standard way to come up
with the trend line being discussed (a linear trend line):
-----
| Below you blame Excel and Pages for *both* using something other
| than "standard methods".
Incorrect.
-----

cc #2: denying that Excel does a tend line in the "standard" way, and
by extension, Pages since it comes up with the same result:
-----
The "standard" way to add trend lines to an Excel chart is not the
same as the "standard" way to do an analysis to come up with the
correct trend line.
-----

Of note, you will refuse to say which of your contradictory positions you
now believe. So do not give me any of your BS about not saying they are
doing it wrong when you say they offer results that are "horribly fucked
up".

> So if you can actually write a fully factual post summarizing my problems with
> your shitty analysis, then I will show you what you missed (although I've
> already pointed it out numerous times) and give you step by step instructions
> for doing it correctly in Excel. If you don't want to, then you can remain
> ignorant.

Of note: you failed to find a single error in how Excel and Numbers came to
their results - you merely call it "horribly fucked up" and spew insults and
accusations.

Hmmm, who to believe: you or both Apple and MS's spreadsheet programs.

Hint: you lose. You have nothing to say of value and nothing to show that
both Excel and Numbers are, as you claimed, giving a result that is
"horribly fucked up". Poor you... so wrong so often.

But keep spewing your insults and accusations - it is the best you can do to
help deal with your very, very wounded pride. Poor cc: wrong again. So
very, very wrong.



--

cc proves he is an ID forging pathological liar
<http://goo.gl/eC1qa>

[Steve Carroll]

On May 8, 4:58 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 5/8/12 2:30 PM, in article
> 21795241.1002.1336512625497.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynei13, "cc"
>

> <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> As discussed to death, you are lying.  Period.  Remember, the facts are
> >> clear:
>
> >> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
> >> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
>
> >> The linear trend lines, during the data ranges looked at (both yours and
> >> mine), is going up.  There is no doubt about this nor argument against it.
>
> >> It is simply a fact.
>
> > No it's not. You fucked up big time, and you don't even realize it.
>
> >> And you flip flop on whether you think Excel and Pages
> >> are doing linear trend lines in the correct (or "standard") method or not:
>
> > No I'm not. I'm pointing out your incorrect input is all. You're just dumb.
>
> > We both started with the same data set, we both did a least squares regression
> > line, and yet yours is horribly fucked up.
>
> I never once mentioned the phrase "least squares regression line",

LOL! Snit, you're doing **statistical analysis** here! Now roll over
and bury yourself, fool ;)

> Hint: you lose.

As you aren't even in the running how can that be? LOL!

[Snit]

On 5/8/12 2:57 PM, in article a0tj62...@mid.individual.net, "bbgruff"

So what? The implication is that the systems without Windows cost more for
Dell to sell and support, and thus they charge more. I have no problem with
that.

> Apart from netbooks (in days gone by) I have yet to see Dell offering any
> non-Windows model at a price less than the same-spec Windows version.

But price was not a part of your claims:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/DellLinux.gif>

You made specific and incorrect claims. You were wrong. So be it - we all
make mistakes. It would be the correct thing for you to acknowledge this
error of yours and even offer an apology, though I suspect you shall not do
so.

> Pretty obviously, one is better off buying the Windows version and
> overwriting it!

But for some the idea of buying a Windows system goes against their
philosophy / religion / cult-like feelings. In such a case the more
expensive system gives them an option. They can put their money where there
mouth is and support what they think is "right", no matter how misguided and
absurd I feel it is. Really it is rather clever of Dell to offer such
systems where they can make a profit off of such irrational people... though
perhaps it is a bit exploitive.

[Snit]

On 5/8/12 2:25 PM, in article a0tha4...@mid.individual.net, "bbgruff"

<bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tuesday 08 May 2012 02:04 Snit wrote:
>
>> Goodness, you are just clueless... OK, I owe you nothing - remember that -
>> but I am a nice guy (and it fun to prove you wrong):
>>
>> <http://goo.gl/TfPnj>
>>
>> Look on the left of the page. What do you see under "Operating System"?
>> Come on, now, do not be shy... list the options. Ah, yes: "FreeDOS and
>> Linux" are listed. Right there.
>>
>> But you say such options do not exist.
>>
>> But they do. Deal with it.
>
> Well, I did do a bit of "dealing with it" - and thanks for the link.
> Three weeks now, and this is all you can show - an obscure corner of the
> BUSINESS site for Dell U.S.?

Newsflash for you: I did you a favor. I am not your errand boy.

Bottom line: you made some specific claims. They were wrong... and by doing
just a few minutes of research I was able to prove it. You made a mistake.
It happens.

Now try to deal with it well, if you can.

> I just took one example properly - try others if you wish, because this
> could be the exception, but I think did see other similar examples:-
>
> Optiplex 390 N
> Intel 2120
> 16X DVD
> HD Graphics 2000
> 250GB HD
> 2GB RAM.
>
> WITHOUT Windows (FreeDOS) = $623
>
> WITH Windows (same spec) = $439
>
> Come on Snit - SURE they sell it without Windows,

Good to see you admit this... given how it directly contradicts your
previous claims of how they did not and that my telling you the facts about
how they did somehow put me in "denial".

> but for $184 I'm sure that your local computer shop would be quite willing to
> reformat a disk! How about being serious? I mean, 42% MORE to have FreeDOS
> rather than Windows????

So what? Maybe it costs that much more to sell and support such systems?
Maybe they are seeing an opportunity to make some cash off of people with
such strong cult-like feelings they refuse to buy the cheaper system. We do
not know what their reasoning is for their price structure... and frankly it
does not matter.

You made a mistake. This has been proved. Please try to handle it well.
Thanks!


--
"I mischaracterize things you say." - cc

[Randall Flagg]

On Tue, 8 May 2012 17:41:51 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> I'll bet Snit feels like a burnt biscuit now!

Speaking of biscuits, who is buttering the buns of Snit's wife while he
parks on COLA nearly nonstop? :)

[Torre Starnes]

On Mon, 7 May 2012 17:06:41 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> After swilling some grog, 7 belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/6/12 11:13 PM, in article ko5k79-...@sky.matrix, "Homer"
>>> <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Verily I say unto thee that 7 spake thusly:
>>>>>
>>>>> What the numbers are saying is that of all the net's users about 90%
>>>>> are windummies and apphol users but they are clicking more than their
>>>>> proportionate share
>>>>
>>>> A lot of it is probably Malware phoning home, which puts GNU/Linux at an
>>>> immediate disadvantage, since it tends not to suffer that affliction.
>>>
>>> Ah, so you think the stats for Android are grossly overrepresented as
>>> well.
>>>
>>> Right?
>>
>> You merely have tell us one currently active Android virus in the Android
>> market that is doing this grossness hallucination of yours seeing as they
>> remove it all within 5 minutes of having it reported,
>> and remove it from any machine that connects to the internet automatically.
>
> 7 exhibits more logic than Snit.
>
> To tell you the truth, although there are exceptions, the "herd" is
> a more logical "herd". Also a more humorous "herd", and a more pleasant
> "herd".

You are pathetic Chris Ahlstrom.

Posts like this prove how screwed up you really are.

I feel sorry for you.

[chrisv]

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> bbgruff belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>

>> WITHOUT Windows (FreeDOS) = $623
>>
>> WITH Windows (same spec) = $439
>>
>> Come on Snit - SURE they sell it without Windows, but for $184 I'm sure that
>> your local computer shop would be quite willing to reformat a disk!
>> How about being serious? I mean, 42% MORE to have FreeDOS rather than
>> Windows????

Gosh!

Why do efforts to sell non-Windows machines fail???

It must be that *everyone* *really wants* Windows!!!!

>Holy crap! No wonder Linux can't make it for small businesses and
>consumers at DELL!

How many times does it need to be repeated?

It's not enough that it is "possible" to buy a non-Windows machine.
We all admit that that is "possible".

There needs to be a somewhat level playing field, with fair values and
levels of choice at least somewhere in the same ballfield.

>I'll bet Snit feels like a burnt biscuit now!

It's happy that its troll got read and responded-to. The point of the
rebuttal will be ignored, and we will again be attacked, using the
same lies and idiocy.