Disturbing Anomalies in Desktop Linux Statistics

[bbgruff]

This is getting to be very disturbing.

I had become quite accustomed to the flatfish etc. mantra of "Linux is dead
on the Desktop", and the unerring faith that was always put in hitslink
statistics.

I can only think that either the folks at hitslink are incompetent, or that
some of you "cola loons" are in some way doctoring the hits that they
record.
No other possibility makes sense..... does it????

Jul 2011 0.97%
Aug 2011 1.07%
Sep 2011 1.11%
Oct 2011 1.19%
Nov 2011 1.31%
Dec 2011 1.41%
Jan 2012 1.56%

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-
share.aspx?qprid=9&qpcustomb=0
http://tinyurl.com/6s23tko

[TomB]

On 2012-02-01, the following emerged from the brain of bbgruff:

Yet another source shows increasing usage of GNU/Linux on the desktop.
More than 50% over the last 7 months actually. What desktop OS does
better for the same period?

--
BOFH excuse #200:

The monitor needs another box of pixels.

[Peter Köhlmann]

Those results are just an indicator, and I suspect that they show only part
of the truth

Heise in germany (publisher of several computing magzinenes, like c't) has
around 14% of accesses from linux to its sites. And those are just the
browsers identifying themselves as running on linux.
But then, the usage of linux in germany is way higher than worldwide. Most
sources tend to agree that desktop linux in germany is around 3% to 4%, some
suspect around 5% desktop linux.

[DFS]

Which sources are those?

[DFS]

Tell you what: I'll take 5% of $100 million, and you can have 50% of $1
million. Deal?

[Philip]

I presume this is based om large samples (hits), so even a half
percentage point is significant.

[Peter Köhlmann]

Heise itself, and several other german sites

Linux has been a much bigger factor in germany and several other european
countries for several years than in the US.

For example the munich conversion isn't the first one of a municipal switch
to linux. The middle sized town Schwäbisch Hall has already switched several
years ago, and it influenced the munich decision. Other smaller cities also
have already switched.

Years ago Heise sponsored a school project to provide linux servers and
desktops for school IT classes with help and a special linux distro
assembled for those purposes

[Snit]

bbgruff stated in post 9otcnk...@mid.individual.net on 2/1/12 10:57 AM:

Hmmmm, renewed interest in usability and experimentation on the desktop...
and the usage numbers increase.

Exactly what *I* have been saying would happen and the herd has been
disagreeing with. For years.


--
🙈🙉🙊

[Snit]

TomB stated in post 20120201...@usenet.drumscum.be on 2/1/12 12:09 PM:

While it is great that my predictions have come true about desktop Linux
usage increasing as usability issues are focused on (something I have said
only to have the herd insist such things are against the OSS ecosystem), the
uptick is still hardly more than a statistical hiccup. Do not get too
excited yet. Hopefully as Ubuntu and others continue to focus on usability
which will lead to this trend continuing, but let us not pretend that there
is huge news now. There is, however, a good sign - and yet another example
of where the herd has been clueless as they disagree with me.


--
🙈🙉🙊

[Snit]

Peter Köhlmann stated in post jgc3th$u0r$1...@dont-email.me on 2/1/12 12:30 PM:

Based on...??? Oh, something other than the best data we have. Got it.


--
🙈🙉🙊

[cc]

On Feb 2, 5:40 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> TomB stated in post 20120201200640...@usenet.drumscum.be on 2/1/12 12:09 PM:

>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2012-02-01, the following emerged from the brain of bbgruff:
> >> This is getting to be very disturbing.
>
> >> I had become quite accustomed to the flatfish etc. mantra of "Linux
> >> is dead on the Desktop", and the unerring faith that was always put
> >> in hitslink statistics.
>
> >> I can only think that either the folks at hitslink are incompetent,
> >> or that some of you "cola loons" are in some way doctoring the hits
> >> that they record.
> >> No other possibility makes sense..... does it????
>
> >> Jul 2011   0.97%
> >> Aug 2011   1.07%
> >> Sep 2011   1.11%
> >> Oct 2011   1.19%
> >> Nov 2011   1.31%
> >> Dec 2011   1.41%
> >> Jan 2012   1.56%
>

> >>http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qp...

> >> customb=0
> >>http://tinyurl.com/6s23tko
>
> > Yet another source shows increasing usage of GNU/Linux on the desktop.
> > More than 50% over the last 7 months actually. What desktop OS does
> > better for the same period?
>
> While it is great that my predictions have come true about desktop Linux
> usage increasing as usability issues are focused on

Is there some evidence out there that the increase in usage is due to
usability issues being focused on?

--
"So what did MS really innovate in terms of the desktop?" - Snit

[Snit]

cc stated in post
69966f89-f660-4b80...@s8g2000pbj.googlegroups.com on 2/2/12
7:20 AM:

>>> Yet another source shows increasing usage of GNU/Linux on the desktop.
>>> More than 50% over the last 7 months actually. What desktop OS does
>>> better for the same period?
>>
>> While it is great that my predictions have come true about desktop Linux
>> usage increasing as usability issues are focused on
>
> Is there some evidence out there that the increase in usage is due to
> usability issues being focused on?

The correlation fits with my prediction. I know, I know, the word
"correlation" has more than five letters and will confuse you, but go beg
someone else to help you understand what it means.

--
🙈🙉🙊

[cc]

On Feb 2, 11:09 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> cc stated in post
> 69966f89-f660-4b80-8b5a-4897aa176...@s8g2000pbj.googlegroups.com on 2/2/12

I understand what the word correlation means, and I'm asking you for
proof that there is indeed a correlation at all. If there were a
correlation, you should be able to show it.

If there was a correlation between focusing on usability issues and an
increase in Linux usage, then it would a clear roadmap on how to get
more users to Linux. But many events happened in the Linux community
over that time period of increased users. Where is the proof that
there is a clear correlation in the focusing on usablitiy issues and
the increase in users and not a correlation between the increased
press for Android and the increase in users for instance? Perhaps it
is just a random uptick in users, with no correlation to anything? If
the correlation fits with your prediction, then you should be able to
show proof that there is a correlation.

[-hh]

On Feb 2, 1:53 am, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlm...@t-online.de> wrote:
> DFS wrote:
> > On 2/1/2012 2:30 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> >> TomB wrote:
>
> >>> On 2012-02-01, the following emerged from the brain of bbgruff:
> >>>> This is getting to be very disturbing.
>
> >>>> I had become quite accustomed to the flatfish etc. mantra of "Linux
> >>>> is dead on the Desktop", and the unerring faith that was always put
> >>>> in hitslink statistics.
>
> >>>> I can only think that either the folks at hitslink are incompetent,
> >>>> or that some of you "cola loons" are in some way doctoring the hits
> >>>> that they record.

> >>>> ...

> >>>>http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-
> >> share.aspx?qprid=9&qpcustomb=0
> >>>>http://tinyurl.com/6s23tko

Of course, prior to July 2011, their data was:

March, 2011 1.00%
April, 2011 0.99%
May, 2011 0.95%
June, 2011 1.00%
July, 2011 0.97%


Moving on, these pages at hitslink currently presently have the
regional / demographics options enabled, so it is possible to get more
than just the 'worldwide' view, but also regional ones, to examine
claims such as from Peter:

> >> Heise in germany (publisher of several computing magzinenes, like c't)
> >> has around 14% of accesses from linux to its sites. And those are just
> >> the browsers identifying themselves as running on linux.
> >> But then, the usage of linux in germany is way higher than worldwide.
> >> Most sources tend to agree that desktop linux in germany is around 3% to
> >> 4%, some suspect around 5% desktop linux.
>
> > Which sources are those?
>
> Heise itself, and several other german sites

Using the "Germany" filter at hitlinks currently returns:

89.55% - Windows
8.58% - Mac (OS X)
1.85% - Linux
0.01% - Sun OS
0.00% - FreeBSD

Drilling down on the timeline for just Linux ... and still with
"Germany" filter enabled:

March, 2011 1.64%
April, 2011 1.73%
May, 2011 1.65%
June, 2011 1.79%
July, 2011 1.86%
August, 2011 1.87%
September, 2011 1.74%
October, 2011 1.63%
November, 2011 1.69%
December, 2011 1.87%
January, 2012 1.85%

FWIW, doing the same regional look by country (still just Germany) for
mobile OSs yields:

iOS 78.51%
Android 17.15%
Symbian 1.51%
Windows Phone 1.16%
Java ME 0.53%
BlackBerry 0.50%
Bada 0.49%
Windows Mobile 0.11%
Kindle 0.02%
Samsung 0.01%
Palm 0.01%
LG 0.01%

...and timelines can be looked at there. In a nutshell, iOS loses
~7% over the period, which looks like was mostly Android's gain. But
it is still at what's roughly a 4:1 ratio, so even though second place
is gaining, it is still pretty distant...an overly simplistic linear
extrapolation of 2011 would suggest convergence to occur three years
from now, in 2015.


-hh

[bbgruff]

On Thursday 02 February 2012 16:46 -hh wrote:

> Drilling down on the timeline for just Linux ... and still with
> "Germany" filter enabled:
>
> March, 2011 1.64%
> April, 2011 1.73%
> May, 2011 1.65%
> June, 2011 1.79%
> July, 2011 1.86%
> August, 2011 1.87%
> September, 2011 1.74%
> October, 2011 1.63%
> November, 2011 1.69%
> December, 2011 1.87%
> January, 2012 1.85%
>

Take a look at the USA figures (and then the !USA)
Either there's something wrong with the figures, or the USA is experiencing
a huge surge in Linux popularity, or somebody (as I said, cola loons!) is
managing to cook the books.

[Snit]

cc stated in post
f2290be0-a80b-4263...@i10g2000pbl.googlegroups.com on 2/2/12
9:47 AM:

You just proved you do not know what a correlation is. Got it.



--
🙈🙉🙊

[cc]

On Feb 2, 3:23 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> cc stated in post

> f2290be0-a80b-4263-94c7-0f9b2ac76...@i10g2000pbl.googlegroups.com on 2/2/12

LOL! A correlation is a measure of relation between two or more
variables. You have failed, repeatedly, to show such a relation in
this case.

Your basic argument of "I predicted if X happens, then Y happens. Y
happened so X must have happened" is not a correlation and also a
logical fallacy.

[DFS]

What's the correlation between the number of times you use the word
correlation in a post (9 in this one) and the laughs it will generate?

heh!

[Snit]

DFS stated in post jgf3ff$933$6...@dont-email.me on 2/2/12 3:41 PM:

The sad thing is he keeps using the word and it is clear he has no idea what
it means. He keeps talking in terms of cause and effect... is there
*anything* he is not clueless about?


--
🙈🙉🙊

[DFS]

On 2/2/2012 6:24 PM, Snit wrote:

> The sad thing is he keeps using the word and it is clear he has no idea what
> it means. He keeps talking in terms of cause and effect... is there
> *anything* he is not clueless about?

He's sorta trolling you, fella. Like he often does.

On this issue (you predicted a gain in Linux users if a focus was made
on usability) I have to side with cc: there's no way to prove such a
correlation exists. Heck, to begin with you don't even know if there's
a sustained increase in users - the marketshare.hitslink.com numbers are
up for a few consecutive months, but in the recent past (May 2010 - Aug
2010) they've also shown significant consecutive drops:

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=9&qpaf=&qpcustom=Linux&qpcustomb=0&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=133&qpnp=25


Also, it can probably be argued that the increases are due to Ubuntu's
popularity. But has Ubuntu become more usable now than it was 6 months
ago?

[Snit]

DFS stated in post jgfmjb$4rl$2...@dont-email.me on 2/2/12 9:08 PM:

> On 2/2/2012 6:24 PM, Snit wrote:
>
>> The sad thing is he keeps using the word and it is clear he has no idea what
>> it means. He keeps talking in terms of cause and effect... is there
>> *anything* he is not clueless about?
>
>
> He's sorta trolling you, fella. Like he often does.
>
> On this issue (you predicted a gain in Linux users if a focus was made
> on usability) I have to side with cc: there's no way to prove such a
> correlation exists.

The correlation is pretty easy to see I (though you do make a reasoned case
against it, below)... even if not an exact 1:1 correlation (how does one
measure the improvement in usability? Has anyone looked at a graph of that
compared to usage numbers?). But the idea that there has been both a recent
uptick in desktop Linux usage *and* the fact that there have been some
pretty large changes in KDE, Gnome, and the UIs of some major distros
(Ubuntu and Mint come to mind) is well known.

This fits very well with my predictions. Once usability issues are focused
on, usage will increase (though there will be some lag).

So the correlation is there. No real room for doubt. What has *not* been
shown is a cause and effect relationship - and, frankly, I am not sure how
one would get that. As far as I know there have not been studies asking
newer users why they have started using desktop Linux (which would only be a
rather weak form of evidence anyway) and there certainly has been no
controlled study where different UIs and even the knowledge of them have
been withheld from some groups and granted to others.

> Heck, to begin with you don't even know if there's a sustained increase in
> users - the marketshare.hitslink.com numbers are up for a few consecutive
> months, but in the recent past (May 2010 - Aug 2010) they've also shown
> significant consecutive drops:
>
> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=9&qpaf=&qpcustom=Linux&qpcus
> tomb=0&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=133&qpnp=25
>
> Also, it can probably be argued that the increases are due to Ubuntu's
> popularity. But has Ubuntu become more usable now than it was 6 months
> ago?

Well, there will be a lag in usability vs. use - and Ubuntu has made
*massive* changes in usability. It can be argued that not all of these
changes are good, but they are certainly trying... and trying in many of the
ways I have noted desktop Linux should - making programs be more consistent,
for example, whether they be designed for KDE or Gnome.

But when you talk about what effect is due to what cause, you are no longer
looking at a "mere" correlation - you are looking for a cause and effect
relationship.

It is this difference which completely alluded cc.

--
🙈🙉🙊

[cc]

At least it would actually be measurable, unlike Snit's claims.

[cc]

On Feb 3, 4:59 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> DFS stated in post jgfmjb$4r...@dont-email.me on 2/2/12 9:08 PM:

>
> > On 2/2/2012 6:24 PM, Snit wrote:
>
> >> The sad thing is he keeps using the word and it is clear he has no idea what
> >> it means.  He keeps talking in terms of cause and effect... is there
> >> *anything* he is not clueless about?
>
> > He's sorta trolling you, fella.  Like he often does.
>
> > On this issue (you predicted a gain in Linux users if a focus was made
> > on usability) I have to side with cc: there's no way to prove such a
> > correlation exists.
>
> The correlation is pretty easy to see I (though you do make a reasoned case
> against it, below)... even if not an exact 1:1  correlation (how does one

Then show it. 1:1 correlation is not even a thing. Correlation is from
-1 (negative correlation) to 1 (positive correlation) with 0 being no
correlation.

> measure the improvement in usability?  Has anyone looked at a graph of that
> compared to usage numbers?). But the idea that there has been both a recent
> uptick in desktop Linux usage *and* the fact that there have been some
> pretty large changes in KDE, Gnome, and the UIs of some major distros
> (Ubuntu and Mint come to mind) is well known.
>
> This fits very well with my predictions.  Once usability issues are focused
> on, usage will increase (though there will be some lag).

It fits your predictions, so it must be true!

> So the correlation is there.  No real room for doubt.  What has *not* been

Then show it.

> shown is a cause and effect relationship - and, frankly, I am not sure how
> one would get that.  As far as I know there have not been studies asking

Oh, you don't know what a correlation is. If Apple stock falls and the
stock market as a whole falls, that does not mean there is a
correlation between the two. Even if you predicted it.

> newer users why they have started using desktop Linux (which would only be a
> rather weak form of evidence anyway) and there certainly has been no
> controlled study where different UIs and even the knowledge of them have
> been withheld from some groups and granted to others.
>
> > Heck, to begin with you don't even know if there's a sustained increase in
> > users - the marketshare.hitslink.com numbers are up for a few consecutive
> > months, but in the recent past (May 2010 - Aug 2010) they've also shown
> > significant consecutive drops:
>

> >http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=9&qpaf=&qpcustom=Li...

> > tomb=0&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=133&qpnp=25
>
> > Also, it can probably be argued that the increases are due to Ubuntu's
> > popularity.  But has Ubuntu become more usable now than it was 6 months
> > ago?

Anything could be argued. It's unknown.

> Well, there will be a lag in usability vs. use - and Ubuntu has made
> *massive* changes in usability.  It can be argued that not all of these
> changes are good, but they are certainly trying... and trying in many of the
> ways I have noted desktop Linux should - making programs be more consistent,
> for example, whether they be designed for KDE or Gnome.
>
> But when you talk about what effect is due to what cause, you are no longer
> looking at a "mere" correlation - you are looking for a cause and effect
> relationship.
>
> It is this difference which completely alluded cc.
>

You obviously don't know what correlation means.

[cc]

On Feb 2, 11:08 pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
> On 2/2/2012 6:24 PM, Snit wrote:
>
> > The sad thing is he keeps using the word and it is clear he has no idea what
> > it means.  He keeps talking in terms of cause and effect... is there
> > *anything* he is not clueless about?
>
> He's sorta trolling you, fella.  Like he often does.
>
> On this issue (you predicted a gain in Linux users if a focus was made
> on usability) I have to side with cc: there's no way to prove such a
> correlation exists.

But the correlation is easy to see! Snit predicted it!

[TomB]

On 2012-02-03, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:

8<

> But has Ubuntu become more usable now than it was 6 months ago?

No :-p

--
BOFH excuse #299:

The data on your hard drive is out of balance.

[DFS]

On 2/3/2012 2:11 PM, TomB wrote:
> On 2012-02-03, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:
>
> 8<
>
>> But has Ubuntu become more usable now than it was 6 months ago?
>
> No :-p

uh oh... no correlation for Snit.

I haven't even booted into Linux in 8 months or so, and I haven't
followed Ubuntu. Does the latest version still come with Unity? Do
most people still hate it?

[cc]

On Feb 3, 2:24 pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 2:11 PM, TomB wrote:
>
> > On 2012-02-03, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:
>
> > 8<
>
> >> But has Ubuntu become more usable now than it was 6 months ago?
>
> > No :-p
>
> uh oh... no correlation for Snit.

Because that would have been all that was necessary...

[Chris Ahlstrom]

TomB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2012-02-03, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:
>
> 8<
>
>> But has Ubuntu become more usable now than it was 6 months ago?
>
> No :-p

Is it less usable?

Disclaimer: I don't use Ubuntu, and in fact have a different idea of
what constitutes usability than the average "consumer".

--
Hint - Microsoft may have 10,000+ employees but not all of them work on
Vista. As a matter of fact, only a small percentage actually work in
the OS group. Other employees work on the projects that they're
assigned to. Just like not everybody who is employed at Ford works on
the "Ford Mustang."
-- Larry Qualig, http://www.groupsrv.com/linux/about102659.html

[Snit]

DFS stated in post jghca3$mn6$2...@dont-email.me on 2/3/12 12:24 PM:

We can debate if it Unity is or is not an improvement in usability - I know
I have my misgivings about it. But what is clear is that there have been
some pretty big changes in KDE, Gnome, and the UIs of Ubuntu and Mint. And
at least with Ubuntu, one of the big parts is making KDE and Gnome programs
more consistent. Those two teams have failed to work together so others are
trying to take up the slack.


--
🙈🙉🙊

[GreyCloud]

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> TomB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 2012-02-03, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:
>>
>> 8<
>>
>>> But has Ubuntu become more usable now than it was 6 months ago?
>> No :-p
>
> Is it less usable?
>
> Disclaimer: I don't use Ubuntu, and in fact have a different idea of
> what constitutes usability than the average "consumer".
>

What is unity?

[Peter Köhlmann]

A new DE, currently only used by Ubuntu.

Most linux users don't like it, because it is a dumbed down DE. It has about
as much configurability as OSX has, that is, nearly none
OSX users would feel at home, though. The lack of choices would feel cozy

It /might/ be OK for a Pad-GUI, but as a desktop GUI I think it is a failure

Even Gnome3 got criticized for its lack of personolization, and Gnome3 was
way more configurable than Unity.

Currently the DE with the most ideas how to do things would be KDE4.
Since it is also the most configurable DE, I tend to agree.
It already now does things OSX has in some "future ideas"

[Foster]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 16:29:32 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> TomB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 2012-02-03, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:
>>
>> 8<
>>
>>> But has Ubuntu become more usable now than it was 6 months ago?
>>
>> No :-p
>
> Is it less usable?

I can use a rock to pound nails into the new roof I am putting on my
garage.
That doesn't mean I would ever want to when there are better
choices.

[TomB]

On 2012-02-03, the following emerged from the brain of Chris Ahlstrom:

> TomB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 2012-02-03, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:
>>
>> 8<
>>
>>> But has Ubuntu become more usable now than it was 6 months ago?
>>
>> No :-p
>
> Is it less usable?

Out of the box it is. IMO.

Of course one can always dump Unity and install a more sensible DE/WM.
That's how things work in GNU/Linux.

To me, Ubuntu lost a lot of it's usability "under the hood".
Dependancies that shouldn't be, upstart, packagekit, policykit... Some
of those can still be pulled out of the system, but not as well as
with eg. Debian or Gentoo.

> Disclaimer: I don't use Ubuntu, and in fact have a different idea of
> what constitutes usability than the average "consumer".

Ha, same here :-)

--
BOFH excuse #429:

Temporal anomaly

[Snit]

Peter Köhlmann stated in post jghofa$134$1...@dont-email.me on 2/3/12 3:52 PM:

> GreyCloud wrote:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> TomB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> On 2012-02-03, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:
>>>>
>>>> 8<
>>>>
>>>>> But has Ubuntu become more usable now than it was 6 months ago?
>>>> No :-p
>>>
>>> Is it less usable?
>>>
>>> Disclaimer: I don't use Ubuntu, and in fact have a different idea of
>>> what constitutes usability than the average "consumer".
>>>
>> What is unity?
>
> A new DE, currently only used by Ubuntu.
>
> Most linux users don't like it, because it is a dumbed down DE. It has about
> as much configurability as OSX has, that is, nearly none
> OSX users would feel at home, though. The lack of choices would feel cozy

Can you find evidence Mac users like it more than others?

No.

You made that up. You make up a lot of things.

> It /might/ be OK for a Pad-GUI, but as a desktop GUI I think it is a failure
>
> Even Gnome3 got criticized for its lack of personolization, and Gnome3 was
> way more configurable than Unity.

Configurability as a goal is stupid. Usability, however, often includes
having options be configurable.

> Currently the DE with the most ideas how to do things would be KDE4.
> Since it is also the most configurable DE, I tend to agree.
> It already now does things OSX has in some "future ideas"

Such as...???


--
🙈🙉🙊

[Chris Ahlstrom]

GreyCloud wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

Some new desktop interface. Some seem to like it, many seem to dislike
it. I never tried it; I like Fluxbox.

--
It's possible, you can never know, that the universe exists only for me. If so,
it's sure going well for me, I must admit.
-- Bill Gates, TIME magazine Vol. 149, No. 2 (13 January 1997)

[TomB]

On 2012-02-03, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:
> On 2/3/2012 2:11 PM, TomB wrote:
>> On 2012-02-03, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:
>>
>> 8<
>>
>>> But has Ubuntu become more usable now than it was 6 months ago?
>>
>> No :-p
>
>
> uh oh... no correlation for Snit.

I think the entire idea is bullshit. If there's any reason for the
slight uptake in GNU/Linux desktop usage, it's a combination of the
following:

* the declining need for applications that live outside a browser (ie.
(the Google idea of the browser is the OS)
* the relatively good "marketing" of Ubuntu by Canonical
* the halo effect of Linux (the kernel that is for those who want to
nitpick) being the core component of the very popular Android

Usability? Nah. A broad range of very usable environments have been
available on GNU/Linux for many years. I'd even say that overall
usability somewhat decreased, in general with Gnome 3 (which is
awful), and more specific with Canonical's Unity (which is - to me at
least - better and more usable than Gnome 3, but way below Gnome 2 or
anything done by KDE).

> I haven't even booted into Linux in 8 months or so, and I haven't
> followed Ubuntu. Does the latest version still come with Unity? Do
> most people still hate it?

Some love it. Others hate it. I have no idea which way the scale tips.

--
BOFH excuse #446:

Mailer-daemon is busy burning your message in hell.

[Marti Van Lin]

On 03-02-12 23:52, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> GreyCloud wrote:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> TomB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> On 2012-02-03, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:
>>>>
>>>> 8<
>>>>
>>>>> But has Ubuntu become more usable now than it was 6 months ago?
>>>> No :-p
>>>
>>> Is it less usable?
>>>
>>> Disclaimer: I don't use Ubuntu, and in fact have a different idea of
>>> what constitutes usability than the average "consumer".
>>>
>> What is unity?
>
> A new DE, currently only used by Ubuntu.

I'm sorry Peter, but that's not correct. Unity is not a entire DE, it is
only a Shell on top of Gnome 3.

> Most linux users don't like it, because it is a dumbed down DE. It has about
> as much configurability as OSX has, that is, nearly none
> OSX users would feel at home, though. The lack of choices would feel cozy

In the meantime Unity has become a lot more configurable, by means of
Ubuntu-Tweak and the community already provided a way to move the "Dock"
to the bottom of the screen. It looks and feels pretty much like KDE
that way.

> It /might/ be OK for a Pad-GUI, but as a desktop GUI I think it is a failure

Unity 5.2 as implemented in the development branch of Ubuntu 12.04
(Precise Pangolin) was greatly improved.

> Even Gnome3 got criticized for its lack of personolization, and Gnome3 was
> way more configurable than Unity.

Unity is only a shell on top of Gnome 3.

> Currently the DE with the most ideas how to do things would be KDE4.
> Since it is also the most configurable DE, I tend to agree.
> It already now does things OSX has in some "future ideas"

Can't argue with that, KDE SC 4.8 is fantastic, yet I prefer Canonical's
Unity.

--
|_|0|_| Marti T. van Lin, alias ML2MST
|_|_|0| https://linuxcounter.net/user/513040.html
|0|0|0| http://osg33x.blogspot.com

[Snit]

TomB stated in post 201202040...@usenet.drumscum.be on 2/3/12 9:37 PM:

> On 2012-02-03, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:
>> On 2/3/2012 2:11 PM, TomB wrote:
>>> On 2012-02-03, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:
>>>
>>> 8<
>>>
>>>> But has Ubuntu become more usable now than it was 6 months ago?
>>>
>>> No :-p
>>
>>
>> uh oh... no correlation for Snit.
>
> I think the entire idea is bullshit.

Yeah, just insane to think a focus on usability would please users.

Wait.

No, that is common sense... not that such a focus will always work, but of
*course* usability leads to more users. All else being equal, how could it
not?

> If there's any reason for the slight uptake in GNU/Linux desktop usage, it's a
> combination of the following:
>
> * the declining need for applications that live outside a browser (ie.
> (the Google idea of the browser is the OS)

Desktop apps are still huge, but, sure, as web apps grow the lesser desktops
have a chance for growth.

> * the relatively good "marketing" of Ubuntu by Canonical

Much of their "marketing" is to try to make programs more consistent and
easier to use. They have taken missteps and, to their credit, they have
admitted this. Excellent. As I have said, Shuttleworth gets what many
(most) in COLA do not.

> * the halo effect of Linux (the kernel that is for those who want to
> nitpick) being the core component of the very popular Android

Most people have no clue Android has any ties to desktop Linux. Why would
they?

> Usability? Nah. A broad range of very usable environments have been
> available on GNU/Linux for many years.

Do you deny the huge focus on usability in KDE, Gnome, Ubuntu, and Mint?

Really?

> I'd even say that overall usability somewhat decreased, in general with Gnome
> 3 (which is awful), and more specific with Canonical's Unity (which is - to me
> at least - better and more usable than Gnome 3, but way below Gnome 2 or
> anything done by KDE).

They have their warts... but the main "problem" I hear in COLA is that these
teams are figuring out that configurability as a goal in itself is absurd...
configurability should be there to boost usability. And at times it should
be limited to boost usability.

🙈🙉🙊

[Peter Köhlmann]

Marti Van Lin wrote:

> On 03-02-12 23:52, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>
>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>> TomB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2012-02-03, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:
>>>>>
>>>>> 8<
>>>>>
>>>>>> But has Ubuntu become more usable now than it was 6 months ago?
>>>>> No :-p
>>>>
>>>> Is it less usable?
>>>>
>>>> Disclaimer: I don't use Ubuntu, and in fact have a different idea of
>>>> what constitutes usability than the average "consumer".
>>>>
>>> What is unity?
>>
>> A new DE, currently only used by Ubuntu.
>
> I'm sorry Peter, but that's not correct. Unity is not a entire DE, it is
> only a Shell on top of Gnome 3.

Maybe, I don't care. I have seen it briefly, and knew at once that I will
never use it

>> Most linux users don't like it, because it is a dumbed down DE. It has
>> about as much configurability as OSX has, that is, nearly none
>> OSX users would feel at home, though. The lack of choices would feel cozy
>
> In the meantime Unity has become a lot more configurable, by means of
> Ubuntu-Tweak and the community already provided a way to move the "Dock"
> to the bottom of the screen. It looks and feels pretty much like KDE
> that way.

It is still Gnome based.
And if there is something more hideously (from a programmers view) than
gnome, you have to show me
Nothing on earth is so unclean programming than Gnome. It is effectivly
doing classes and object orientation with C, not C++, being based on GTK.
I will not touch something like that myself ever, even though there are C++
bindings present

>> It /might/ be OK for a Pad-GUI, but as a desktop GUI I think it is a
>> failure
>
> Unity 5.2 as implemented in the development branch of Ubuntu 12.04
> (Precise Pangolin) was greatly improved.

It will never reach the state where it can take up KDE, IMO

>> Even Gnome3 got criticized for its lack of personolization, and Gnome3
>> was way more configurable than Unity.
>
> Unity is only a shell on top of Gnome 3.

Every shell can hide something from the underpinnings. Unity obviously does

>> Currently the DE with the most ideas how to do things would be KDE4.
>> Since it is also the most configurable DE, I tend to agree.
>> It already now does things OSX has in some "future ideas"
>
> Can't argue with that, KDE SC 4.8 is fantastic, yet I prefer Canonical's
> Unity.
>

See? That is what choice is about.

[DFS]

On 2/4/2012 1:16 AM, Snit wrote:
> TomB stated in post 201202040...@usenet.drumscum.be on 2/3/12 9:37 PM:
>
>> On 2012-02-03, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:
>>> On 2/3/2012 2:11 PM, TomB wrote:
>>>> On 2012-02-03, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:
>>>>
>>>> 8<
>>>>
>>>>> But has Ubuntu become more usable now than it was 6 months ago?
>>>>
>>>> No :-p
>>>
>>>
>>> uh oh... no correlation for Snit.
>>
>> I think the entire idea is bullshit.
>
> Yeah, just insane to think a focus on usability would please users.
>
> Wait.
>
> No, that is common sense... not that such a focus will always work, but of
> *course* usability leads to more users.

Yes. Probably.

But Linux didn't suddenly become much more usable over the last 6 months
than it was a year ago, yet marketshare.hitslink.com shows a marked
increase in Linux users over the last 6 months.

If anything, I'd place more weight on the Android halo effect TomB
mentioned than on usability. There are hoards of Android users, and
some were probably led to Linux.

> All else being equal, how could it
> not?

Past victims of poor usability won't try the new and improved offering?

It's why MS should include a Slackware or Arch Linux CD with every
Windows CD. Consumers curious about Linux will spend a few minutes
staring in disbelief that "This is what Linux is like in 2012?", and the
vast majority will never try it again.

> Most people have no clue Android has any ties to desktop Linux. Why would
> they?

Even those that do know will have a hard time finding out more about it.
See my post 'Why is Linux barely mentioned on the Android website?'

[Snit]

DFS stated in post jgje72$4v1$3...@dont-email.me on 2/4/12 7:09 AM:

> On 2/4/2012 1:16 AM, Snit wrote:
>> TomB stated in post 201202040...@usenet.drumscum.be on 2/3/12 9:37 PM:
>>
>>> On 2012-02-03, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:
>>>> On 2/3/2012 2:11 PM, TomB wrote:
>>>>> On 2012-02-03, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:
>>>>>
>>>>> 8<
>>>>>
>>>>>> But has Ubuntu become more usable now than it was 6 months ago?
>>>>>
>>>>> No :-p
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> uh oh... no correlation for Snit.
>>>
>>> I think the entire idea is bullshit.
>>
>> Yeah, just insane to think a focus on usability would please users.
>>
>> Wait.
>>
>> No, that is common sense... not that such a focus will always work, but of
>> *course* usability leads to more users.
>
> Yes. Probably.
>
> But Linux didn't suddenly become much more usable over the last 6 months
> than it was a year ago, yet marketshare.hitslink.com shows a marked
> increase in Linux users over the last 6 months.

There has been a pretty big focus on usability over the last couple of
years: KDE and Gnome have both gone through huge face-lifts and Ubuntu and
Mint have also been doing a lot of work on making their products more
usable. Shuttleworth has talked specifically of how Ubuntu is being made so
KDE and Gnome applications can be more consistent - he is thinking on a
*system* level, not just an application level. This is very important.
Sure, the KDE and Gnome teams have dropped the ball on this to a large
extent, but even they are working on making things more usable. Heck, the
KDE team has *finally* figured out that configurability is a stupid goal in
and of itself (which is not to say configurability cannot be a very
important part of usability).

Perhaps we can look at the major milestones for KDE, Gnome, Ubuntu, and Mint
and then compare that to the usage of desktop Linux. It seems clear that as
those projects focus on usability there has been an uptick. Maybe we can
get graphs of the changes... I would expect that the usage increase would
follow the usability increase (the benefits take time to be known, etc.).

What we do know, though, is that both of these things have been happening:
an increased focus on usability and in increased user base (in terms of not
just numbers but percentages). This is *exactly* what one should expect,
though I have not - nor do I know of anyone else - who has done the work to
see how strong the correlation is. And even harder, showing a direct cause
and a effect - that had not been done, though it is common sense to figure
that an increase in usability focus will lead to an increase in users.

> If anything, I'd place more weight on the Android halo effect TomB
> mentioned than on usability. There are hoards of Android users, and
> some were probably led to Linux.

How many Android users even know it is based on Linux? But Android does
have a strong focus on usability - even if it is not the "gold standard" of
the industry.

>> All else being equal, how could it
>> not?
>
> Past victims of poor usability won't try the new and improved offering?

But we do see some people *are*.

> It's why MS should include a Slackware or Arch Linux CD with every
> Windows CD. Consumers curious about Linux will spend a few minutes
> staring in disbelief that "This is what Linux is like in 2012?", and the
> vast majority will never try it again.

Sure, most will not. But some do. And that number is growing... and I
think the OSS community is at least working on earning that. I commend them
for it.

>> Most people have no clue Android has any ties to desktop Linux. Why would
>> they?
>
> Even those that do know will have a hard time finding out more about it.
> See my post 'Why is Linux barely mentioned on the Android website?'

Right... so while their may be some "halo" effect, it is not likely to be
much. But, sure, the usability efforts I am talking about need not be the
whole answer. I am not denying there can be other causes.

But keep in mind, the initial claim was about a *correlation*, not a cause
and effect relationship. When discussing this, cc showed he had no idea
what the difference was. He likely still does not.



--
🙈🙉🙊

[Foster]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 09:09:25 -0500, DFS wrote:


> If anything, I'd place more weight on the Android halo effect TomB
> mentioned than on usability. There are hoards of Android users, and
> some were probably led to Linux.

Probably true.

>
>
>> All else being equal, how could it
>> not?
>
> Past victims of poor usability won't try the new and improved offering?
>
> It's why MS should include a Slackware or Arch Linux CD with every
> Windows CD. Consumers curious about Linux will spend a few minutes
> staring in disbelief that "This is what Linux is like in 2012?", and the
> vast majority will never try it again.

Many years ago I wrote Bill Gates and suggested that very scenario.
I also suggested that "use at your own risk" be plastered everywhere
so that when the user obliterated his data he couldn't blame
Microsoft.

[DFS]

On 2/4/2012 9:48 AM, Foster wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 09:09:25 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>
>> If anything, I'd place more weight on the Android halo effect TomB
>> mentioned than on usability. There are hoards of Android users, and
>> some were probably led to Linux.
>
> Probably true.
>
>>
>>
>>> All else being equal, how could it
>>> not?
>>
>> Past victims of poor usability won't try the new and improved offering?
>>
>> It's why MS should include a Slackware or Arch Linux CD with every
>> Windows CD. Consumers curious about Linux will spend a few minutes
>> staring in disbelief that "This is what Linux is like in 2012?", and the
>> vast majority will never try it again.
>
> Many years ago I wrote Bill Gates and suggested that very scenario.

Yes, it was your idea (and it's a damn good one). And note I've given
you credit for it many times here on cola, but not today. Sorry.

[Foster]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 09:59:12 -0500, DFS wrote:

> On 2/4/2012 9:48 AM, Foster wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 09:09:25 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If anything, I'd place more weight on the Android halo effect TomB
>>> mentioned than on usability. There are hoards of Android users, and
>>> some were probably led to Linux.
>>
>> Probably true.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> All else being equal, how could it
>>>> not?
>>>
>>> Past victims of poor usability won't try the new and improved offering?
>>>
>>> It's why MS should include a Slackware or Arch Linux CD with every
>>> Windows CD. Consumers curious about Linux will spend a few minutes
>>> staring in disbelief that "This is what Linux is like in 2012?", and the
>>> vast majority will never try it again.
>>
>> Many years ago I wrote Bill Gates and suggested that very scenario.
>
> Yes, it was your idea (and it's a damn good one). And note I've given
> you credit for it many times here on cola, but not today. Sorry.

Nahh...I'm sure other's have thought of it before me.
I think it's a great marketing promotion.

Kind of like in the movie "Miracle on 34th Street" where Gimbels
sends shoppers to Macys when they don't have the item the shopper is
looking for.

[GreyCloud]

That is one of things I didn't like about OS X. I've read a few peoples
comments elsewhere where they wished that the desktop had some means of
changing the decorations a bit. There were few 3rd party vendors that
could do it, but they never could go far enough to make significant
changes. windows on the other hand could make significant changes.
Remember Dr.Square? I remember where he actually had his website show
the many ways he could change and configure his desktop for a nextstep
like desktop.

[GreyCloud]

Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> Marti Van Lin wrote:
>

So far, I like Suse the best. On the other mac, I downloaded a very
nice desktop theme that I really liked. Only one thing that I couldn't
find was where the intial KDE desktop has a few icons on the screen...
these had a few symbols next to them. If I accidentally clicked on the
X the icon disappears. How do you get it back? I couldn't find
anything in the docs about it.

[GreyCloud]

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> GreyCloud wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> TomB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> On 2012-02-03, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:
>>>>
>>>> 8<
>>>>
>>>>> But has Ubuntu become more usable now than it was 6 months ago?
>>>> No :-p
>>> Is it less usable?
>>>
>>> Disclaimer: I don't use Ubuntu, and in fact have a different idea of
>>> what constitutes usability than the average "consumer".
>>>
>> What is unity?
>
> Some new desktop interface. Some seem to like it, many seem to dislike
> it. I never tried it; I like Fluxbox.
>

I remember Fluxbox, but never tried it. What are its advantages?

[Chris Ahlstrom]

For me, it's lean on RAM, minimalistic (no desktop icons), the menu is
accessed from anywhere on the desktop, and just about every function,
even the removal/adding of the window decoration, can be attached to a
sequence of keystrokes. It also supports pseudo-transparency and
compositing for eye-candy.

--
Ask the Freetard if thinks the GPL should time out so people can freely
steal the code and not re-release it.
-- "Hadron" <k3wrhkq...@news.eternal-september.org>

[GreyCloud]

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> GreyCloud wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> GreyCloud wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>> TomB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2012-02-03, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 8<
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But has Ubuntu become more usable now than it was 6 months ago?
>>>>>> No :-p
>>>>> Is it less usable?
>>>>>
>>>>> Disclaimer: I don't use Ubuntu, and in fact have a different idea of
>>>>> what constitutes usability than the average "consumer".
>>>>>
>>>> What is unity?
>>> Some new desktop interface. Some seem to like it, many seem to dislike
>>> it. I never tried it; I like Fluxbox.
>> I remember Fluxbox, but never tried it. What are its advantages?
>
> For me, it's lean on RAM, minimalistic (no desktop icons), the menu is
> accessed from anywhere on the desktop, and just about every function,
> even the removal/adding of the window decoration, can be attached to a
> sequence of keystrokes. It also supports pseudo-transparency and
> compositing for eye-candy.
>

I'll have to try it out when I get the new HP. I'll use it under
VirtualBox and give it a go.

[TomB]

On 2012-02-04, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:

> On 2/4/2012 1:16 AM, Snit wrote:
>> TomB stated in post 201202040...@usenet.drumscum.be on 2/3/12
>> 9:37 PM:
>>> On 2012-02-03, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:
>>>> On 2/3/2012 2:11 PM, TomB wrote:
>>>>> On 2012-02-03, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:
>>>>>
>>>>> 8<
>>>>>
>>>>>> But has Ubuntu become more usable now than it was 6 months ago?
>>>>>
>>>>> No :-p
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> uh oh... no correlation for Snit.
>>>
>>> I think the entire idea is bullshit.
>>
>> Yeah, just insane to think a focus on usability would please users.
>>
>> Wait.
>>
>> No, that is common sense... not that such a focus will always work,
>> but of *course* usability leads to more users.
>
> Yes. Probably.

Certainly even. But the GNU/Linux desktop has been very usable for
many years. Way back in 2002, when I started using GNU/Linux on the
desktop, I definitely found Mandrake with KDE3 a more usable
environment than Windows 2000 or XP. Easier, prettier and with many
more nifty features.

> But Linux didn't suddenly become much more usable over the last 6
> months than it was a year ago,

Definitely not. To the contrary, desktop GNU/Linux is currently
somewhat in a "transitional phase", where one of the major desktop
environments - Gnome - completely abondoned the old desktop metaphore,
and one of the leading distros - Ubuntu - came up with their own
environment. Both are not without warts, and I strongly believe that
the current state of both has lead to /less/ usability rather than
/more/.

Amongst this we still have KDE4 standing strong as - IMO at least -
the best and most usable "full" desktop environment.

And of course there still are the little guys, like fluxbox and
awesome, but I doubt if any changes in those would cause even the
slightest ripple in the uptake of GNU/Linux on the desktop.

> yet marketshare.hitslink.com shows a marked increase in Linux users
> over the last 6 months.
>
> If anything, I'd place more weight on the Android halo effect TomB
> mentioned than on usability. There are hoards of Android users, and
> some were probably led to Linux.

I strongly thing that's at least part of the story. Something I did
not consider yet is the increasing industry support for GNU/Linux -
one of the point I have always said was the main reason for GNU/Linux
not quite "getting there" on the desktop. With this I mean that more
and more services are slowly becoming OS agnostic (in part because of
the increasing importance of the web browser), and are no longer
available to Windows (and Mac) users only.

Stuff like Dropbox and Wuala for instance have native GNU/Linux
support, and stuff like that is the single most important point for
users.

Also increasing support for hardware manufacturers is a possible
reason for the uptick.

Provide GNU/Linux with good support for the programs and services
people are using day to day, and its usage will skyrocket.

8<

>> Most people have no clue Android has any ties to desktop Linux.
>> Why would they?
>
> Even those that do know will have a hard time finding out more about
> it. See my post 'Why is Linux barely mentioned on the Android
> website?'

Nah, the connection with Linux (for the nitpickers: yes, the kernel,
duh) is often mentioned in the media, and people pick that up. Most
will never wonder about it, but some will start looking into it, and
perhaps even try a GNU/Linux distro.

Here's an idea you should like: perhaps the slight uptick in usage is
nothing more than a hundredthousand people trying out a GNU/Linux live
CD? :-p

--
BOFH excuse #12:

dry joints on cable plug

[Snit]

TomB stated in post 201202051...@usenet.drumscum.be on 2/5/12 12:01
PM:

> On 2012-02-04, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:
>> On 2/4/2012 1:16 AM, Snit wrote:
>>> TomB stated in post 201202040...@usenet.drumscum.be on 2/3/12
>>> 9:37 PM:
>>>> On 2012-02-03, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:
>>>>> On 2/3/2012 2:11 PM, TomB wrote:
>>>>>> On 2012-02-03, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 8<
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But has Ubuntu become more usable now than it was 6 months ago?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No :-p
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> uh oh... no correlation for Snit.
>>>>
>>>> I think the entire idea is bullshit.
>>>
>>> Yeah, just insane to think a focus on usability would please users.
>>>
>>> Wait.
>>>
>>> No, that is common sense... not that such a focus will always work,
>>> but of *course* usability leads to more users.
>>
>> Yes. Probably.
>
> Certainly even. But the GNU/Linux desktop has been very usable for
> many years.

Are you denying that the massive changes seen in KDE and Gnome, as well as
in Ubuntu and Mint, were done - largely - to improve usability?

That is what I am noting: that usability was a large part of the goal. Esp.
with Ubuntu (even with its many warts), one of the stated goals is to help
reduce the problem of KDE and Gnome programs being so inconsistent.

This is important. Shuttleworth gets this. I get this. There really is no
coherent argument against this position (though I can see reasonable
disagreement as to the relative importance - others might see other things
as being higher priority than do Shuttleworth, I, and others)

> Way back in 2002, when I started using GNU/Linux on the desktop, I definitely
> found Mandrake with KDE3 a more usable environment than Windows 2000 or XP.
> Easier, prettier and with many more nifty features.

But clearly users *in general* do not. This is obvious. The idea that
people would pay money - often lots of money - to use a product that was
less easy to use / less productive, or even only equal, is just silly. I
mean, sure, if desktop Linux were to catch up today there would be a lag
time - but your lag time of over a decade is just laughable.

>> But Linux didn't suddenly become much more usable over the last 6
>> months than it was a year ago,
>
> Definitely not. To the contrary, desktop GNU/Linux is currently
> somewhat in a "transitional phase", where one of the major desktop
> environments - Gnome - completely abondoned the old desktop metaphore,
> and one of the leading distros - Ubuntu - came up with their own
> environment. Both are not without warts, and I strongly believe that
> the current state of both has lead to /less/ usability rather than
> /more/.

I do not disagree that there are warts... there *clearly* are. But even the
KDE team is getting the idea that just "configurability" as a goal in itself
is absurd... configurability is a part of usability and it is important to
know what to make (easily) configurable and what to not (so as to not
overwhelm the user / interface). This does not mean you cannot - nor should
not - have a way for an advanced user to configure things more. And, as
noted above, Ubuntu has been focusing on dealing with the problems the KDE
and Gnome teams have failed to handle well - making it so a system (with
both types of programs) can be more consistent. Those two teams do somewhat
work together, but not enough. Shuttleworth gets this and is trying to help
move things forward. And even with Ubuntu's missteps (and we can list
many), the fact he gets this matters.

> Amongst this we still have KDE4 standing strong as - IMO at least -
> the best and most usable "full" desktop environment.

<http://www.kde.org/>
-----
KDE Plasma Workspaces, Applications and Platform 4.8 Improve
User Experience

On 25th January 2012, KDE has released 4.8.0, containing
compelling new features and improvements to the Plasma
Workspaces, the KDE Applications and the KDE Development
Platform.
-----

<http://kde.org/announcements/4.0/>
-----
The strong focus on excellent technology in the KDE community
has resulted in one of the most complete, consistent and
efficient development platforms in existence.
-----

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDE_Software_Compilation_4>
-----
The Oxygen Project builds on the freedesktop.org Icon Naming
Specification and Icon Theme Specification, allowing
consistency across applications.
...
Dolphin replaces Konqueror as the default file manager in KDE
4.0. This was done to address complaints of Konqueror being
too complicated for a simple file manager.
...
Theming improvements in the Task Bar, Application Launcher,
System Tray and most other Plasma components streamline the
look and feel and increase consistency.
-----

<http://kde.org/announcements/4.2/desktop.php>
-----
Desktop Improves User Experience
-----

That is just with seconds of searching. Of course one of the main goals of
KDE 4 was to make things more usable (though there were other goals of
portability, different screen size and input support, etc.)

When you make tools more usable and productive then people will use them
more. That is my point. The fact even this, something so amazingly
obvious, is a point of contention in COLA shows how out of touch many of the
"advocates" are. Remember, I am not saying it is the only reason for the
uptick... not even saying it is a "proved" reason (correlation does not show
cause and effect), but it is pretty much common sense.

> And of course there still are the little guys, like fluxbox and
> awesome, but I doubt if any changes in those would cause even the
> slightest ripple in the uptake of GNU/Linux on the desktop.

And how many of the "new" users to desktop Linux are using them. I bet not
many.

>> yet marketshare.hitslink.com shows a marked increase in Linux users
>> over the last 6 months.
>>
>> If anything, I'd place more weight on the Android halo effect TomB
>> mentioned than on usability. There are hoards of Android users, and
>> some were probably led to Linux.
>
> I strongly thing that's at least part of the story. Something I did
> not consider yet is the increasing industry support for GNU/Linux -
> one of the point I have always said was the main reason for GNU/Linux
> not quite "getting there" on the desktop. With this I mean that more
> and more services are slowly becoming OS agnostic (in part because of
> the increasing importance of the web browser), and are no longer
> available to Windows (and Mac) users only.

Yes: desktop Linux works well as a "dumb terminal" for the web - and with
Flash becoming less important (largely because of Apple), this is even more
true. Those of us who truly want to see Linux grow and be used more should
be thankful Apple took on that fight and, at least largely, won.

> Stuff like Dropbox and Wuala for instance have native GNU/Linux
> support, and stuff like that is the single most important point for
> users.
>
> Also increasing support for hardware manufacturers is a possible
> reason for the uptick.
>
> Provide GNU/Linux with good support for the programs and services
> people are using day to day, and its usage will skyrocket.

Usability and productivity matter. No doubt.

> 8<
>
>>> Most people have no clue Android has any ties to desktop Linux.
>>> Why would they?
>>
>> Even those that do know will have a hard time finding out more about
>> it. See my post 'Why is Linux barely mentioned on the Android
>> website?'
>
> Nah, the connection with Linux (for the nitpickers: yes, the kernel,
> duh) is often mentioned in the media, and people pick that up. Most
> will never wonder about it, but some will start looking into it, and
> perhaps even try a GNU/Linux distro.

I am sure this happens to *some* extent - though I cannot think of a single
example I have ever heard. Heck, I have known a few Android phone users to
look into OS X because they realize their Android device is largely based on
what Apple has done. But even that is not likely *that* common.

> Here's an idea you should like: perhaps the slight uptick in usage is
> nothing more than a hundredthousand people trying out a GNU/Linux live
> CD? :-p

LiveCDs have been around for some time! They are not new.

--
🙈🙉🙊

[Snit]

On Feb 4, 9:09 am, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>
>
> But Linux didn't suddenly become much more usable over the last 6 months
> than it was a year ago, yet marketshare.hitslink.com shows a marked
> increase in Linux users over the last 6 months.
>
> If anything, I'd place more weight on the Android halo effect TomB
> mentioned than on usability.  There are hoards of Android users, and
> some were probably led to Linux.

LOL! Nice self nuke, Darryl. The correlation is clear. I predicted
it.

If you think I am wrong then you would show it, not just run away.


--
🙈🙉🙊

[Snit]

cc stated in post
51648ae7-a3ab-4374...@v6g2000pba.googlegroups.com on 2/2/12
1:31 PM:

> On Feb 2, 3:23 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> cc stated in post
>> f2290be0-a80b-4263-94c7-0f9b2ac76...@i10g2000pbl.googlegroups.com on 2/2/12
>> 9:47 AM:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 2, 11:09 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> cc stated in post
>>>> 69966f89-f660-4b80-8b5a-4897aa176...@s8g2000pbj.googlegroups.com on 2/2/12
>>>> 7:20 AM:
>>
>>>>>>> Yet another source shows increasing usage of GNU/Linux on the desktop.
>>
>>>>>>> More than 50% over the last 7 months actually. What desktop OS does
>>>>>>> better for the same period?
>>
>>>>>> While it is great that my predictions have come true about desktop Linux
>>>>>> usage increasing as usability issues are focused on
>>
>>>>> Is there some evidence out there that the increase in usage is due to
>>>>> usability issues being focused on?
>>
>>>> The correlation fits with my prediction.  I know, I know, the word
>>>> "correlation" has more than five letters and will confuse you, but go beg
>>>> someone else to help you understand what it means.
>>
>>> I understand what the word correlation means, and I'm asking you for
>>> proof that there is indeed a correlation at all. If there were a
>>> correlation, you should be able to show it.
>>
>>> If there was a correlation between focusing on usability issues and an
>>> increase in Linux usage, then it would a clear roadmap on how to get
>>> more users to Linux. But many events happened in the Linux community
>>> over that time period of increased users. Where is the proof that
>>> there is a clear correlation in the focusing on usablitiy issues and
>>> the increase in users and not a correlation between the increased
>>> press for Android and the increase in users for instance? Perhaps it
>>> is just a random uptick in users, with no correlation to anything? If
>>> the correlation fits with your prediction, then you should be able to
>>> show proof that there is a correlation.
>>
>> You just proved you do not know what a correlation is.  Got it.
>
>
> LOL! A correlation is a measure of relation between two or more
> variables.

Ah, so you can use a dictionary. But who cares... above you showed you had
no idea what the *concept* meant. Mayne you are learning... but you did not
know. Obviously.

But you will deny this. You will lie. You always lie... it is just who you
are.

> You have failed, repeatedly, to show such a relation in
> this case.

I do not doubt you are ignorant of what you have been shown. Who cares?

> Your basic argument of "I predicted if X happens, then Y happens. Y
> happened so X must have happened" is not a correlation and also a
> logical fallacy.

As I said: you are completely clueless. Just lost. You have no idea what
is being discussed.



--
🙈🙉🙊

[Snit]

cc stated in post
cda0b5ff-cf73-4fde...@y5g2000pbk.googlegroups.com on 2/3/12
6:47 AM:

> On Feb 2, 5:41 pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:

>> What's the correlation between the number of times you use the word
>> correlation in a post (9 in this one) and the laughs it will generate?
>>
>> heh!
>
> At least it would actually be measurable, unlike Snit's claims.

The fact you are clueless does not reflect poorly on me.


--
🙈🙉🙊

[Snit]

cc stated in post
4b141447-61bc-4066...@og8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com on 2/3/12
6:52 AM:

> On Feb 3, 4:59 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> DFS stated in post jgfmjb$4r...@dont-email.me on 2/2/12 9:08 PM:
>>
>>> On 2/2/2012 6:24 PM, Snit wrote:
>>
>>>> The sad thing is he keeps using the word and it is clear he has no idea
>>>> what
>>>> it means.  He keeps talking in terms of cause and effect... is there
>>>> *anything* he is not clueless about?
>>
>>> He's sorta trolling you, fella.  Like he often does.
>>
>>> On this issue (you predicted a gain in Linux users if a focus was made
>>> on usability) I have to side with cc: there's no way to prove such a
>>> correlation exists.
>>
>> The correlation is pretty easy to see I (though you do make a reasoned case
>> against it, below)... even if not an exact 1:1  correlation (how does one
>
>
> Then show it. 1:1 correlation is not even a thing. Correlation is from
> -1 (negative correlation) to 1 (positive correlation) with 0 being no
> correlation.

A one to one correlation refers to a correlation of 1... though more
accurately it is a one to one correspondence.

So hey, you win the pedantic game! You still have no clue what was meant by
a correlation... you showed you thought it meant cause and effect.

You were wrong. But you will never admit to it. Whatever... you are a
lying idiot anyway.

>> measure the improvement in usability?  Has anyone looked at a graph of that
>> compared to usage numbers?). But the idea that there has been both a recent
>> uptick in desktop Linux usage *and* the fact that there have been some
>> pretty large changes in KDE, Gnome, and the UIs of some major distros
>> (Ubuntu and Mint come to mind) is well known.
>>
>> This fits very well with my predictions.  Once usability issues are focused
>> on, usage will increase (though there will be some lag).
>
> It fits your predictions, so it must be true!

What do you mean by this... if anything?

>> So the correlation is there.  No real room for doubt.  What has *not* been
>
> Then show it.

What part are you missing: the fact that there has been a focus on usability
or the fact the user base has grown?

>> shown is a cause and effect relationship - and, frankly, I am not sure how
>> one would get that.  As far as I know there have not been studies asking
>
> Oh, you don't know what a correlation is. If Apple stock falls and the
> stock market as a whole falls, that does not mean there is a
> correlation between the two. Even if you predicted it.

Again: your ignorance is not my fault. By the way, there is a correlation
between Apple stock prices and the market as a whole. But this goes over
your head.

>> newer users why they have started using desktop Linux (which would only be a
>> rather weak form of evidence anyway) and there certainly has been no
>> controlled study where different UIs and even the knowledge of them have
>> been withheld from some groups and granted to others.
>>
>>> Heck, to begin with you don't even know if there's a sustained increase in
>>> users - the marketshare.hitslink.com numbers are up for a few consecutive
>>> months, but in the recent past (May 2010 - Aug 2010) they've also shown
>>> significant consecutive drops:
>>
>>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=9&qpaf=&qpcustom=Li...
>>> tomb=0&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=133&qpnp=25
>>
>>> Also, it can probably be argued that the increases are due to Ubuntu's
>>> popularity.  But has Ubuntu become more usable now than it was 6 months
>>> ago?
>
> Anything could be argued. It's unknown.

Deep! LOL!

>> Well, there will be a lag in usability vs. use - and Ubuntu has made
>> *massive* changes in usability.  It can be argued that not all of these
>> changes are good, but they are certainly trying... and trying in many of the
>> ways I have noted desktop Linux should - making programs be more consistent,
>> for example, whether they be designed for KDE or Gnome.
>>
>> But when you talk about what effect is due to what cause, you are no longer
>> looking at a "mere" correlation - you are looking for a cause and effect
>> relationship.
>>
>> It is this difference which completely alluded cc.
>
> You obviously don't know what correlation means.

And yet you are the one who showed you thought it meant cause and effect.

Fact it, cc, you just showed what an idiot you are - again.

> --
> "So what did MS really innovate in terms of the desktop?" - Snit
>



--
🙈🙉🙊

[Snit]

cc stated in post
4d557c8e-1fc6-402e...@ow3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com on 2/3/12
6:55 AM:

> On Feb 2, 11:08 pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 2/2/2012 6:24 PM, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> The sad thing is he keeps using the word and it is clear he has no idea what
>>> it means.  He keeps talking in terms of cause and effect... is there
>>> *anything* he is not clueless about?
>>
>> He's sorta trolling you, fella.  Like he often does.
>>
>> On this issue (you predicted a gain in Linux users if a focus was made
>> on usability) I have to side with cc: there's no way to prove such a
>> correlation exists.
>

> But the correlation is easy to see! Snit predicted it!

The two variables:

* Increase in focus on usability on desktop Linux
* Increase in number of users

Which are you questioning?



--
🙈🙉🙊

[Snit]

cc stated in post
4b141447-61bc-4066...@og8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com on 2/3/12
6:52 AM:

> 1:1 correlation is not even a thing.

http://bit.ly/xmdEX2

Your ignorance cannot be overstated.

I talked about a correlation... and you thought I meant cause and effect.
Why not just admit you were, again, wrong? Why can't you *ever* be honest.

Oh well, it will be fun to watch you squirm for a bit and then to ignore
your ignorant silliness again... as you run off claiming to be so smart.


--
🙈🙉🙊

[DFS]

I'm questioning an "Increase in focus on usability on desktop Linux".
There's no evidence that's occurred to a greater degree over the last 6
months than in the previous 18 months during which user share was flat.

No doubt the website shows the Linux desktop user share stat has grown
by 50% in the last 6 months.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=9&qpaf=&qpcustom=Linux&qpcustomb=0&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=133&qpnp=25

We have to assume the website uses the same measurement methodology as
in the past. But it shows a near 10% jump each month from Aug 2011 to
Jan 2012. Nearly impossible, and not supported here by similar jumps:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Web_clients


Android users changing their agent strings?

[cc]

On Feb 6, 11:36 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> cc stated in post

> 4b141447-61bc-4066-80f4-ee3e91126...@og8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com on 2/3/12

> 6:52 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 3, 4:59 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>
>
> >> This fits very well with my predictions.  Once usability issues are focused
> >> on, usage will increase (though there will be some lag).
>
> > It fits your predictions, so it must be true!
>
> What do you mean by this... if anything?

Your whole reasoning for there being a correlation is that you
predicted it. You've shown no other evidence.

> >> So the correlation is there.  No real room for doubt.  What has *not* been
>
> > Then show it.
>
> What part are you missing: the fact that there has been a focus on usability
> or the fact the user base has grown?
>

I'm missing the part where you show the two variables are related.

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/statcorr.php

See: Calculating the correlation.
See: Testing the Significance of a Correlation

Show your work.

[Snit]

cc stated in post
c4e2a60b-068f-44a9...@p7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com on 2/7/12
6:35 AM:

You missed the part where I never claimed to show a definite cause and
effect - though the idea that there is one is pretty much common sense. You
also have now admitted you missed my discussion on how and why it is clear
there is a correlation.

The more you talk the more ignorant you show you are. But, hey, you did
find a semantic nit where I used the term one to one correlation which,
while a common phrase, is not stating the correlation in the -1 to 1 range.

So good for you to completely miss the point, show off how you are *still*
functionally illiterate, and then look up the concepts you were ignorant
about and find a minor nit to pick so you can feel good about yourself.

Seriously, you need help. You are unable to admit when you do not know
something.



--
🙈🙉🙊

[Snit]

DFS stated in post jgqgj1$jq$5...@dont-email.me on 2/6/12 11:33 PM:

> On 2/6/2012 11:37 PM, Snit wrote:
>> cc stated in post
>> 4d557c8e-1fc6-402e...@ow3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com on
>> 2/3/12 6:55 AM:
>>
>>> On Feb 2, 11:08 pm, DFS<nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2/2/2012 6:24 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The sad thing is he keeps using the word and it is clear he has
>>>>> no idea what it means. He keeps talking in terms of cause and
>>>>> effect... is there *anything* he is not clueless about?
>>>>
>>>> He's sorta trolling you, fella. Like he often does.
>>>>
>>>> On this issue (you predicted a gain in Linux users if a focus was
>>>> made on usability) I have to side with cc: there's no way to
>>>> prove such a correlation exists.
>>>
>>> But the correlation is easy to see! Snit predicted it!
>>
>> The two variables:
>>
>> * Increase in focus on usability on desktop Linux
>> * Increase in number of users
>>
>> Which are you questioning?
>
>
> I'm questioning an "Increase in focus on usability on desktop Linux".
> There's no evidence that's occurred to a greater degree over the last 6
> months than in the previous 18 months during which user share was flat.

Oh, I think the focus has been going on for longer than the 6 months - but I
also expect there to be a lag. If desktop Linux were today to come out with
a distro which was, somehow, as good as the competition, there would be a
several month lag before it would gain a user base even close to the
competition. So, sure, the correlation is not immediate - what I have
expected and what has been (apparently) happening is that as the focus on
usability grows the user base grows measurably *after a few months*. It
would be weird if it happened at the same time (I would have a hard time
explaining that unless there was a very large ad campaign to alert people
before hand).

I also am not claiming this is the only reason - I think TomB's halo effect,
while small, likely does exist. And the fact that desktops are more often
used as "dumb" terminals for the web also allows desktop Linux to be
appropriate in more situations.

So while this correlation is pretty clear (there is no doubt there has been
a focus on usability and there seems little doubt there is an uptick in
usage), and while I will go as far as to say I believe there is a cause and
effect relationship, I do not believe that is the *only* factor, nor can I
point to any research to show the cause and effect relationship. Still, it
makes sense: a focus on usability and productivity leads to a tool getting
more users (in part because they can be more productive).

The idea that even something as simple and almost self-referential as this
can be a source of debate in COLA is rather amazing. I can see people
saying the effect is stronger or weaker or, as TomB did, offer other factors
that may be coming into play, but to act like this is a big mystery or
something unexpected is just weird as far as I am concerned.

Then again, this is COLA, where the Linux "advocates" are anything but
advocates of Linux. I am noting that many in the OSS community has been
doing the *right* thing - focusing on usability (which is not to imply there
are not other "right" things to do - and that there efforts have been
successful (even with the warts and missteps that are inevitable and have
occurred). But, in short: the OSS is maturing to the point it is clear they
would and should, and they have been doing a pretty good job - as shown by
by the results. Noting this is clearly a form of Linux / OSS advocacy. It
is speaking well of the OSS community and their products they create.

But the Linux "advocates" - the herd - will ignore this or argue against it
because it also shows that I was right about the need / value of the OSS
maturing to this point and about my predictions as to the effect.

So the claim is that the effect, even though predicted by me for years, must
be based on other things and not on the very thing most likely to have the
largest impact.

> No doubt the website shows the Linux desktop user share stat has grown
> by 50% in the last 6 months.
>
> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=9&qpaf=&qpcustom=Linux&qpcus
> tomb=0&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=133&qpnp=25
>
> We have to assume the website uses the same measurement methodology as
> in the past. But it shows a near 10% jump each month from Aug 2011 to
> Jan 2012. Nearly impossible, and not supported here by similar jumps:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Web_clients
>
>
> Android users changing their agent strings?

Good question... it does seem to be a larger jump than one would expect.



--
🙈🙉🙊

[cc]

On Feb 7, 9:54 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> cc stated in post

> c4e2a60b-068f-44a9-a93f-26c5109c3...@p7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com on 2/7/12

> 6:35 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 6, 11:36 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> cc stated in post
> >> 4b141447-61bc-4066-80f4-ee3e91126...@og8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com on 2/3/12
> >> 6:52 AM:
>
> >>> On Feb 3, 4:59 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> This fits very well with my predictions.  Once usability issues are focused
> >>>> on, usage will increase (though there will be some lag).
>
> >>> It fits your predictions, so it must be true!
>
> >> What do you mean by this... if anything?
>
> > Your whole reasoning for there being a correlation is that you
> > predicted it. You've shown no other evidence.
>
> >>>> So the correlation is there.  No real room for doubt.  What has *not* been
>
> >>> Then show it.
>
> >> What part are you missing: the fact that there has been a focus on usability
> >> or the fact the user base has grown?
>
> > I'm missing the part where you show the two variables are related.
>
> >http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/statcorr.php
>
> > See: Calculating the correlation.
> > See: Testing the Significance of a Correlation
>
> > Show your work.
>
> You missed the part where I never claimed to show a definite cause and
> effect

I asked you to show there is a correlation and gave you a link on how
to do so. It has nothing to do with cause and effect.

[Snit]

cc stated in post
8558c0cc-a1d2-433f...@c21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com on 2/7/12
10:13 AM:

...

>> You missed the part where I never claimed to show a definite cause and
>> effect
>
> I asked you to show there is a correlation and gave you a link on how
> to do so. It has nothing to do with cause and effect.

First, let's stat off with a reminder of how ignorant you are. When I spoke
of a correlation, you went off with:

cc:
-----

Is there some evidence out there that the increase in usage
is due to usability issues being focused on?

-----

Yeah, you asked for evidence that given the *correlation* you wanted
evidence that one was *due* to the other. Due to. Cause and effect. You
even re-enforced this misunderstanding of yours when you said:

cc:
-----

If there was a correlation between focusing on usability
issues and an increase in Linux usage, then it would a clear
roadmap on how to get more users to Linux.

-----

Again: You were completely ignorant of what a correlation even is - you kept
going back to the idea of cause and effect. You were wrong and will *never*
admit this... because you are a liar. You the looked it up and used a
dictionary definition:

cc:
-----

A correlation is a measure of relation between two or more
variables.

-----

Now you got this definition almost word for word from this site:
<http://goo.gl/rIQUb> or one like it. You, of course, gave no attribution
because you did not want to admit you did not know what the word meant.

Now I was clear that while I *believe* there is a cause and effect between
building greater usability / productivity and an increase in users (and, of
course, this is common sense), I know of no study or experiment to support
it. You, not understanding that, keep asking me to show evidence of what I
have noted I have no evidence for (I cannot support this common sense
notion). I have even noted how TomB has noted other reasonable possible
reasons for the increase in numbers and how DFS has put some of the numbers
into question as far as to the rate of change. It is not as though I have
pretended to have all the answers.

Really I am noting just a number of facts:
1) There has been a pretty big focus on usability issues in the OSS world:
this has been shown with KDE4, Gnome3, Ubuntu, and Mint. While there have
been missteps and transition pains - in each case the large changes made to
these projects were done in large part to improve usability / productivity
(though there are also other reasons, such as portability and the like).

2) Desktop Linux usage, reportedly, is increasing at about the same time -
though with a lag (which would be expected).

3) I have, for years, been noting that if the OSS community focuses more on
usability issues there is likely to be an increase in users - with, of
course, a lag. And I have spoken of how there will be migration pains and
challenges (as there with any such migration).

Hence the data fits very well with my predictions and with common sense.
This does not prove that the correlation (which is only vaguely defined, by
the way - and I have discussed that) *is* based on the cause and effect
relationship I have predicted, nor does it discount the other ideas of TomB
or DFS. There is certainly room for reasoned disagreement on how much of
any one thing is affecting a change in another thing. No doubt.

So TomB and DFS are, mostly, offering differing ideas to challenge my view
(to a greater or lesser extent) but they are doing so from a position of
reason and intellect. I not only have no problem with that, I welcome it.
Such discussions lead to better understanding by all.

You, on the other hand, are simply too far over your head to participate in
a reasonable way: you have (or had) no idea what was meant by a correlation,
you keep demanding evidence of the strength of the correlation even though
the reasons why this has not been done has been discussed, and you keep
demanding proof of the cause and effect I have said seems apparent, even
though I have noted that, even though it is common sense, there is no good
way to get direct evidence. In short, you are making demands, spewing
insults, asking for information about what has already been provided, and
otherwise offering nothing but your normal useless blather.

Now if you want to keep posting on this topic fine. If you have something
new to add - lovely. But if you keep repeating the same useless nonsense
BS, expect to be ignored or to get a kind reference to this post where you
now have, in quite some detail, an explanation of where you have been both
ignorant, wrong, and rude.

And keep in mind this is your norm: you repeatedly make idiotic comments and
refuse to admit you were wrong. You did this with your claims about GUI
elements being designed by Xerox - you refused to admit your error even
though I showed you how wrong you were - you insisted on having professional
experience with GUI design even though you showed you are completely
clueless on the topic - you spend months insisting I advocated things I
never did (nor was there ever any reason to think I did), etc. You just
keep making a complete fool of yourself.

--
🙈🙉🙊

[cc]

On Feb 7, 3:05 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> cc stated in post

> 8558c0cc-a1d2-433f-aee3-edd7ad618...@c21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com on 2/7/12

> 10:13 AM:
>
> ...
>
> >> You missed the part where I never claimed to show a definite cause and
> >> effect
>
> > I asked you to show there is a correlation and gave you a link on how
> > to do so. It has nothing to do with cause and effect.
>
> First, let's stat off with a reminder of how ignorant you are.  When I spoke
> of a correlation, you went off with:
>
>  cc:
>     -----
>     Is there some evidence out there that the increase in usage
>     is due to usability issues being focused on?
>     -----
>

That was in response to "While it is great that my predictions have

come true about desktop Linux usage increasing as usability issues are

focused on" where you indicate that that the reason for the increase
in users is better usability. You said nothing of "correlation" until
later.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/102d4a4bd66fe128?hl=en&dmode=source

So you cannot prove that the cause of increased usage is better
usability, nor can you show there is a correlation. NEXT EXCUSE!

[Snit]

cc stated in post
6e12f110-a5aa-47dd...@t24g2000yqj.googlegroups.com on 2/7/12
1:11 PM:

> On Feb 7, 3:05 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> cc stated in post
>> 8558c0cc-a1d2-433f-aee3-edd7ad618...@c21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com on 2/7/12
>> 10:13 AM:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> You missed the part where I never claimed to show a definite cause and
>>>> effect
>>
>>> I asked you to show there is a correlation and gave you a link on how
>>> to do so. It has nothing to do with cause and effect.
>>
>> First, let's stat off with a reminder of how ignorant you are.  When I spoke
>> of a correlation, you went off with:
>>
>>  cc:
>>     -----
>>     Is there some evidence out there that the increase in usage
>>     is due to usability issues being focused on?
>>     -----

> That was in response to "While it is great that my predictions have
> come true about desktop Linux usage increasing as usability issues are
> focused on" where you indicate that that the reason for the increase
> in users is better usability. You said nothing of "correlation" until
> later.

I predicted the two thing would change together... though with a lag. A
correlation. Yes, I have also said I think there is a cause and effect
(gee, you make things more usable and more people use them, what a concept!)
So maybe you were thinking of the cause and effect here... *maybe*... even
though it was not stated. But, OK, it was perhaps not clear enough for you.
I can get that. But look how you continued:

Snit:
-----

The correlation fits with my prediction.  I know, I know, the
word "correlation" has more than five letters and will
confuse you, but go beg someone else to help you understand
what it means.

-----

And you *still* kept on about how a correlation would show a "clear roadmap
to change".

cc:
-----
If there was a correlation between focusing on usability
issues and an increase in Linux usage, then it would a clear
roadmap on how to get more users to Linux.
-----

A correlation is *not* a "clear roadmap" on change... it is *not*, as you
thought, an indication of cause and effect. You were wrong about this. Flat
out wrong.

And you snipped that. As you snip so much. From the post you ran from
(look at how much you simply could not deal with... look at how dishonest
and disreputable you are... just on and on about how you were clueless about
what it means to have a correlation, how you ignored the facts I list, etc):

...

> So you cannot prove that the cause of increased usage is better
> usability, nor can you show there is a correlation. NEXT EXCUSE!

You are completely clueless. Completely. You cannot understand a word you
read. Seriously, you are just an idiot.


--
🙈🙉🙊

[cc]

On Feb 7, 3:40 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> cc stated in post

> 6e12f110-a5aa-47dd-a99f-9efe4cdec...@t24g2000yqj.googlegroups.com on 2/7/12

> 1:11 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 7, 3:05 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> cc stated in post
> >> 8558c0cc-a1d2-433f-aee3-edd7ad618...@c21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com on 2/7/12
> >> 10:13 AM:
>
> >> ...
>
> >>>> You missed the part where I never claimed to show a definite cause and
> >>>> effect
>
> >>> I asked you to show there is a correlation and gave you a link on how
> >>> to do so. It has nothing to do with cause and effect.
>
> >> First, let's stat off with a reminder of how ignorant you are.  When I spoke
> >> of a correlation, you went off with:
>
> >>  cc:
> >>     -----
> >>     Is there some evidence out there that the increase in usage
> >>     is due to usability issues being focused on?
> >>     -----
> > That was in response to "While it is great that my predictions have
> > come true about desktop Linux usage increasing as usability issues are
> > focused on" where you indicate that that the reason for the increase
> > in users is better usability. You said nothing of "correlation" until
> > later.
>
> I predicted

Yes, we know what you predicted. We know you're claiming your
prediction came true. We know you can't prove it.

You have said you believe that the reason the users increased is
because of usability increases. You cannot show this, but then again,
many people blindly believe things without any sort of facts.

But you did say that there was very obviously a correlation between
the two. I asked repeatedly for you to show this was true, but you
have refused. I thought maybe you didn't know how, so I gave you the
link with all the info you need, which somehow made you think I was
asking to show "cause and effect" again. I'm not. I'm just asking you
to back up your statement that there is an obvious correlation. I
don't want to speak for others, but it seems that TomB and DFS both
think there wasn't any actual increase in usability at all, not to
mention a correlation. Here's your chance to set us all straight.

If you have changed your mind, and now believe there is no
correlation, then please let me know. Otherwise, please show your
work. Do you need the link again which shows you how to do a
correlation?

[Snit]

cc stated in post
15907457-ed82-4c14...@a15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com on 2/7/12
1:52 PM:

You ran. Snipped and ran because you know I am right.

It is all you can do. Boring.

--
🙈🙉🙊

[cc]

On Feb 7, 4:09 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> cc stated in post

> 15907457-ed82-4c14-8023-b17ea8b78...@a15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com on 2/7/12

Hah, from someone who's been running from requests for proof for the
past few days, that's rich.

So you can't show the "very obvious correlation." SHOCKER.

Do you not know how, or is there no correlation?

[Snit]

cc stated in post
15907457-ed82-4c14...@a15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com on 2/7/12

1:52 PM:

> Yes, we know what you predicted. We know you're claiming your
> prediction came true. We know you can't prove it.

Wow... given your functional illiteracy, I am happy to see you understand my
comments about about not being able to prove any such cause and effect
relationship - even though they are very much common sense and fit so well
with my predictions.

Seriously, the fact you are showing understanding of this is a step in the
right direction for you. I commend you on that.

> You have said you believe that the reason the users increased is
> because of usability increases.

Please show this quote.

> You cannot show this, but then again, many people blindly believe things
> without any sort of facts.

And now you are just showing off your need to put people down to feel better
about yourself. Boring.

> But you did say that there was very obviously a correlation between
> the two.

And I discuss it, above. And below you demonstrate you cannot understand
the discussion (hence the reason you keep snipping it).

> I asked repeatedly for you to show this was true, but you have refused.

That is a lie. Look above, for example, where I did discuss it (you snipped
it and I returned it... poor you!)

And, again, below you make up things about you thinking (there is little
evidence of this), of you providing helpful links (nope, you did no such
thing), and you deny your obvious confusion about correlations and cause and
effect relationships. Oh well, you are a liar... and an idiot. It is not
like this is news!

> I thought maybe you didn't know how, so I gave you the link with all the info
> you need, which somehow made you think I was asking to show "cause and effect"
> again. I'm not. I'm just asking you to back up your statement that there is an
> obvious correlation. I don't want to speak for others, but it seems that TomB
> and DFS both think there wasn't any actual increase in usability at all, not
> to mention a correlation. Here's your chance to set us all straight.

I have no obligation to offer you what I have! And now you want more! You
*are* an idiot!

> If you have changed your mind, and now believe there is no
> correlation, then please let me know. Otherwise, please show your
> work. Do you need the link again which shows you how to do a
> correlation?

My god you are an idiot. Really... just a completely idiot. You cannot
understand *anything* you read... hence why you snip so much.



--
🙈🙉🙊

[DFS]

On 2/7/2012 3:52 PM, cc wrote:

> I
> don't want to speak for others, but it seems that TomB and DFS both
> think there wasn't any actual increase in usability at all, not to
> mention a correlation.

Even if there was an all-out 'win a copy of Win7 Ultimate' contest for
most increased developer focus on Linux usability in the last year, it
can't explain a 6-month, 60% jump in user base on the
marketshare.hitslink.com site.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=9&qpaf=&qpcustom=Linux&qpcustomb=0&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=133&qpnp=25


In the prior 7-years Linux rarely breached 1.00%, and never for long.


The avg monthly growth rate is:

((Ending value / beginning value) ^ (1 / periods)) - 1

((0.0156 / 0.0097) ^ (1 / 6)) - 1 = 8.24%


Way too high to be sustained for much longer. At that rate, Linux will
match Windows usage in a few years. As if...

[Snit]

cc stated in post
5581cd1a-cbdc-45d4...@k10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com on 2/7/12
2:15 PM:

--
🙈🙉🙊

[Snit]

cc stated in post
5581cd1a-cbdc-45d4...@k10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com on 2/7/12
2:15 PM:

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/fe3d0fafc2cf69f4>

Please do not blame me for your being too functionally illiterate to
understand what you read there.

--
🙈🙉🙊

[cc]

On Feb 7, 4:27 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> cc stated in post

> 5581cd1a-cbdc-45d4-b591-cdb2209a2...@k10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com on 2/7/12

> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/fe3d0fafc2c...>

>
> Please do not blame me for your being too functionally illiterate to
> understand what you read there.
>

I understand you're running from trying to prove a thing you said was
obvious to see. I'm not asking you to prove "cause and effect" or
anything else.

You claimed there was a correlation, so show the correlation.

I gave you a link if you don't know how to do so (although why you
would claim there is a correlation without knowing how to show it is
beyond me). You claimed it was close to 1, so you must have the
calculations somewhere. Show your work.

[Snit]

cc stated in post
5645127e-b93a-45d1...@h6g2000yqk.googlegroups.com on 2/7/12
2:43 PM:

...

>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/fe3d0fafc2c...>
>>
>> Please do not blame me for your being too functionally illiterate to
>> understand what you read there.
>>
>
> I understand you're running from trying to prove a thing you said was
> obvious to see. I'm not asking you to prove "cause and effect" or
> anything else.
>
> You claimed there was a correlation, so show the correlation.
>
> I gave you a link if you don't know how to do so (although why you
> would claim there is a correlation without knowing how to show it is
> beyond me). You claimed it was close to 1, so you must have the
> calculations somewhere. Show your work.

Please quote were you think I said it was "close to 1".

And, remember, everything you have asked for is given to you in the link,
above... you simply are not capable of understanding what you read.



--
🙈🙉🙊

[cc]

On Feb 7, 4:17 pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
> On 2/7/2012 3:52 PM, cc wrote:
>
> > I
> > don't want to speak for others, but it seems that TomB and DFS both
> > think there wasn't any actual increase in usability at all, not to
> > mention a correlation.
>
> Even if there was an all-out 'win a copy of Win7 Ultimate' contest for
> most increased developer focus on Linux usability in the last year, it
> can't explain a 6-month, 60% jump in user base on the
> marketshare.hitslink.com site.
>

Which do you think matters more, usability or apps? Unless we're
grouping "apps available on the system" under "usability" (which would
be silly), I would say the only way to increase the number of Linux
desktop users at this point is to provide the apps people want. If
Linux suddenly became the most "usable" system ever conceived, how
much difference would that make now?

"Can I run any of the applications I'm used to?"
"No, but it's USEABLE!"
"Umm, no thanks."


> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=9&qpaf=&qpcustom=Li...

>
> In the prior 7-years Linux rarely breached 1.00%, and never for long.

Apparently during that 7 year period, nothing happened with
"usability."

> The avg monthly growth rate is:
>
> ((Ending value / beginning value) ^ (1 / periods)) - 1
>
> ((0.0156 / 0.0097) ^ (1 / 6)) - 1 = 8.24%
>
> Way too high to be sustained for much longer.  At that rate, Linux will
> match Windows usage in a few years.  As if...

Maybe time will prove me wrong, but I think it's just a random event
that won't last and we'll see a return to the usual numbers
eventually.

[Snit]

cc stated in post
b715b7e6-cab0-4634...@i18g2000yqf.googlegroups.com on 2/7/12
2:36 PM:

> On Feb 7, 4:17 pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 2/7/2012 3:52 PM, cc wrote:
>>
>>> I
>>> don't want to speak for others, but it seems that TomB and DFS both
>>> think there wasn't any actual increase in usability at all, not to
>>> mention a correlation.
>>
>> Even if there was an all-out 'win a copy of Win7 Ultimate' contest for
>> most increased developer focus on Linux usability in the last year, it
>> can't explain a 6-month, 60% jump in user base on the
>> marketshare.hitslink.com site.
>>
>
> Which do you think matters more, usability or apps?

Without apps, an environment is not very usable!

> Unless we're grouping "apps available on the system" under "usability" (which
> would be silly), I would say the only way to increase the number of Linux
> desktop users at this point is to provide the apps people want.

The world is not so black and white. Both are important: apps and general
ease-of-use of the system. But, sure, it would be silly to discount the
importance of apps. No doubt!

> If Linux suddenly became the most "usable" system ever conceived, how much
> difference would that make now?

Well, if people could easily use it to do what they need to get done it
would be very, very important.

> "Can I run any of the applications I'm used to?"
> "No, but it's USEABLE!"
> "Umm, no thanks."

Gee, such brilliance! LOL! Seriously, your analysis is amazingly shallow.

...


--
🙈🙉🙊

[cc]

On Feb 7, 5:15 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> cc stated in post

> b715b7e6-cab0-4634-9ddd-d6c119c12...@i18g2000yqf.googlegroups.com on 2/7/12

> 2:36 PM:
>
> > On Feb 7, 4:17 pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
> >> On 2/7/2012 3:52 PM, cc wrote:
>
> >>> I
> >>> don't want to speak for others, but it seems that TomB and DFS both
> >>> think there wasn't any actual increase in usability at all, not to
> >>> mention a correlation.
>
> >> Even if there was an all-out 'win a copy of Win7 Ultimate' contest for
> >> most increased developer focus on Linux usability in the last year, it
> >> can't explain a 6-month, 60% jump in user base on the
> >> marketshare.hitslink.com site.
>
> > Which do you think matters more, usability or apps?
>
> Without apps, an environment is not very usable!

That's an odd definition of usability.

> > Unless we're grouping "apps available on the system" under "usability" (which
> > would be silly), I would say the only way to increase the number of Linux
> > desktop users at this point is to provide the apps people want.
>
> The world is not so black and white.  Both are important: apps and general
> ease-of-use of the system.  But, sure, it would be silly to discount the
> importance of apps. No doubt!

I think apps are way more important. Users aren't rejecting Linux
because it isn't usable and they aren't going to flock to Linux
because it's gotten more usable (in fact I think it's gotten less
usable like TomB, but that's just me) and cut and paste works the same
in all applications. I think users don't use Linux because it can't
run the apps that Windows can (JUST MY OPINION). That doesn't fall
under the definition of "usability" that most people use, but you tend
to make up your own definitions...

I use Linux at work semi-regularly (which is where I've gotten my
disgust for the new Ubuntu), but I don't at home. I've never felt
Linux was unusable as far as the interface went (but like I said, I'm
starting to feel that way now with the new Ubuntu), so that's not the
reason it was never on any of my home desktops.

> > If Linux suddenly became the most "usable" system ever conceived, how much
> > difference would that make now?
>
> Well, if people could easily use it to do what they need to get done it
> would be very, very important.

Which they can't do without applications. The best window manager in
the world, the slickest interface, isn't going bring in many new
faces.

> > "Can I run any of the applications I'm used to?"
> > "No, but it's USEABLE!"
> > "Umm, no thanks."
>
> Gee, such brilliance!  LOL!  Seriously, your analysis is amazingly shallow.
>

I guess I should have touted a prediction I can't prove with a
correlation I can't show.

I (retroactively) predict that as more applications are available on
Linux, the number of users will go up. Look, the number of users went
up! My prediction came true. The correlation is obvious to see.

[cc]

On Feb 7, 4:58 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> cc stated in post

> 5645127e-b93a-45d1-a58a-3ba875622...@h6g2000yqk.googlegroups.com on 2/7/12

> 2:43 PM:
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> >> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/fe3d0fafc2c...>
>
> >> Please do not blame me for your being too functionally illiterate to
> >> understand what you read there.
>
> > I understand you're running from trying to prove a thing you said was
> > obvious to see. I'm not asking you to prove "cause and effect" or
> > anything else.
>
> > You claimed there was a correlation, so show the correlation.
>
> > I gave you a link if you don't know how to do so (although why you
> > would claim there is a correlation without knowing how to show it is
> > beyond me). You claimed it was close to 1, so you must have the
> > calculations somewhere. Show your work.
>
> Please quote were you think I said it was "close to 1".
>
> And, remember, everything you have asked for is given to you in the link,
> above...

It shows dodging and an unwillingness to admit you can't show there is
a correlation. Indeed, everything I asked for. So much for your
prediction.

[Snit]

cc stated in post
2d959c66-a382-4829...@t2g2000yqk.googlegroups.com on 2/8/12
6:45 AM:

>>> You claimed it was close to 1, so you must have the
>>> calculations somewhere. Show your work.
>>
>> Please quote were you think I said it was "close to 1".

And, of note, cc cannot offer a quote.

All you can do is ask me to repeat what I told you here:

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/fe3d0fafc2cf69f4>

...

So why not just admit, now, you made up this "close to 1" BS claim of yours.
You just flat out made it up. You, again, lied.


--
🙈🙉🙊

[Snit]

cc stated in post
d8f9dfd3-3fb0-453b...@k10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com on 2/8/12
6:58 AM:

> On Feb 7, 5:15 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> cc stated in post
>> b715b7e6-cab0-4634-9ddd-d6c119c12...@i18g2000yqf.googlegroups.com on 2/7/12
>> 2:36 PM:
>>
>>> On Feb 7, 4:17 pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2/7/2012 3:52 PM, cc wrote:
>>
>>>>> I
>>>>> don't want to speak for others, but it seems that TomB and DFS both
>>>>> think there wasn't any actual increase in usability at all, not to
>>>>> mention a correlation.
>>
>>>> Even if there was an all-out 'win a copy of Win7 Ultimate' contest for
>>>> most increased developer focus on Linux usability in the last year, it
>>>> can't explain a 6-month, 60% jump in user base on the
>>>> marketshare.hitslink.com site.
>>
>>> Which do you think matters more, usability or apps?
>>
>> Without apps, an environment is not very usable!
>
> That's an odd definition of usability.

<http://www.vocabulary.com/definition/usability>
-----
the quality of being of practical use
-----

For a system to be usable, it not only needs applications which make actions
*possible*, but it also has to have them designed in a way which makes it so
the they can be used in a practical way.

But, to be fair, the "usability" I have been speaking of has been focusing
on the design aspects of the system and not the application types... and you
are right that the lack of many types of applications (or decent ones in
many classes) is a big issue. Whether we include this in "usability" or not
is merely a semantic debate - and as such it does not really matter. Heck,
for the purpose of discussion, I think it makes sense to separate the ideas
of "usability" and "application choice" as separate points... and to note I
have been focusing more on, in that split, "usability" when "application
choice" is *also* a very key component.

But I do not think application choice has changed that much over the last
couple of years - at least not as much as the "usability" component. But,
sure, improvement in either area is likely to lead to greater usage (it is
not as though I am saying what you falsely attributed to me):

You claimed it [improvement in the UI/usability] was close to 1

You flat out made that up. You lied. Or maybe it came from your functional
illiteracy... but the fact you now refuse to admit to your "error" shows you
are not honest, no matter how you look at it. You are, as is your norm,
lying.

>>> Unless we're grouping "apps available on the system" under "usability"
>>> (which
>>> would be silly), I would say the only way to increase the number of Linux
>>> desktop users at this point is to provide the apps people want.
>>
>> The world is not so black and white.  Both are important: apps and general
>> ease-of-use of the system.  But, sure, it would be silly to discount the
>> importance of apps. No doubt!
>
> I think apps are way more important. Users aren't rejecting Linux
> because it isn't usable and they aren't going to flock to Linux
> because it's gotten more usable (in fact I think it's gotten less
> usable like TomB, but that's just me) and cut and paste works the same
> in all applications.

I think it is silly to discount usability... and I have shown where cut and
paste do *not* work the same across apps (though I have not re-tested
recently, are you claiming this area of *usability* has improved and hence
is no longer a detractor... if so this contradicts your above comment about
the lack of importance of usability in drawing users!)

> I think users don't use Linux because it can't run the apps that Windows can
> (JUST MY OPINION).

That is a component. No doubt in my mind at all.

...

I snipped your emotional outbursts. They bore me.

--
🙈🙉🙊

[cc]

On Feb 8, 10:05 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> cc stated in post

> 2d959c66-a382-4829-a736-18cf2bdef...@t2g2000yqk.googlegroups.com on 2/8/12

> 6:45 AM:
>
> >>> You claimed it was close to 1, so you must have the
> >>> calculations somewhere. Show your work.
>
> >> Please quote were you think I said it was "close to 1".
>
> And, of note, cc cannot offer a quote.
>
> All you can do is ask me

I'm not asking you anything. You showed me that your claims of there
being an obvious correlation are obviously false. That's everything I
asked for, like I mentioned before. THANK YOU.

[cc]

On Feb 8, 10:17 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> cc stated in post

> d8f9dfd3-3fb0-453b-a8bb-303d5f943...@k10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com on 2/8/12

> 6:58 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 7, 5:15 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> cc stated in post
> >> b715b7e6-cab0-4634-9ddd-d6c119c12...@i18g2000yqf.googlegroups.com on 2/7/12
> >> 2:36 PM:
>
> >>> On Feb 7, 4:17 pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 2/7/2012 3:52 PM, cc wrote:
>
> >>>>> I
> >>>>> don't want to speak for others, but it seems that TomB and DFS both
> >>>>> think there wasn't any actual increase in usability at all, not to
> >>>>> mention a correlation.
>
> >>>> Even if there was an all-out 'win a copy of Win7 Ultimate' contest for
> >>>> most increased developer focus on Linux usability in the last year, it
> >>>> can't explain a 6-month, 60% jump in user base on the
> >>>> marketshare.hitslink.com site.
>
> >>> Which do you think matters more, usability or apps?
>
> >> Without apps, an environment is not very usable!
>
> > That's an odd definition of usability.
>
> <http://www.vocabulary.com/definition/usability>
>     -----
>     the quality of being of practical use
>     -----

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_interface#Usability

The usability of UI has little (but not nothing) to do with what apps
it can run, but has to do with functionality, design, effectiveness
and use of the actual interface, which is what I assume everyone is
talking about when referring to the usability improvements in window
managers. The ability to find an app easily in an UI makes it
"usable", not the quality of having lots of apps to search for.

>
> But, to be fair, the "usability" I have been speaking of has been focusing
> on the design aspects of the system and not the application types

Oh, that is what you were talking about. So you're just being an ass.
Got it.

[Snit]

cc stated in post
8d1e9269-b94e-4736...@h6g2000yqk.googlegroups.com on 2/8/12
11:14 AM:

> On Feb 8, 10:05 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> cc stated in post
>> 2d959c66-a382-4829-a736-18cf2bdef...@t2g2000yqk.googlegroups.com on 2/8/12
>> 6:45 AM:
>>
>>>>> You claimed it was close to 1, so you must have the
>>>>> calculations somewhere. Show your work.
>>
>>>> Please quote were you think I said it was "close to 1".
>>
>> And, of note, cc cannot offer a quote.
>

> I'm not asking you anything.

Right: you are making things up. You are lying.

You claimed I said the correlation was "close to 1", which I never said.
Now you are running from that claim as fast as you can.


--
🙈🙉🙊

[Snit]

cc stated in post
4486f9e2-309f-41a2...@h3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com on 2/8/12
11:21 AM:

Again: you just showed yourself to be functionally illiterate. Oh well.


--
🙈🙉🙊

[cc]

On Feb 8, 3:22 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> cc stated in post

> 8d1e9269-b94e-4736-a09c-69a82a5d4...@h6g2000yqk.googlegroups.com on 2/8/12

> 11:14 AM:
>
> > On Feb 8, 10:05 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>

> >> All you can do is ask me
>
> > I'm not asking you anything. You showed me that your claims of
> > there being an obvious correlation are obviously false. That's
> > everything I asked for, like I mentioned before. THANK YOU.
>

> Right

[Snit]

cc stated in post
d788f37a-76a9-4287...@p13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com on 2/8/12
1:56 PM:

...

>> Right: you are making things up. You are lying.
>>
>> You claimed I said the correlation was "close to 1", which I never said. Now
>> you are running from that claim as fast as you can.
>

> THANK YOU.

All you left, from the above, was the very first word. One word. You left
out the entire meaning. You ran from the fact you made a claim about me
saying something was "close to 1". You ran from the fact you lied.

You are a liar, cc. You are clueless... and when you get pissed off you lie
about what people say and even forge their identities - attributing your own
claims to others.

These are simply facts. At this point you have completely run from the
topics. So let us recap:

1) I noted that there has been (1) a focus on usability *and* (2) an
apparent increase in users - hence a correlation between the two.
Additionally, I noted this fits with my predictions over the last few years.

2) You cannot understand what this means and went off on how I had not
shown the correlation, even though you cannot state which of the above
(labeled 1 and 2, above) you disagree with.

3) While I have postulated a cause and effect relationship between the two
(and gave ideas as to why), you confused the concept of the suggested cause
and effect relationship and that of a correlation spoken of above.

3) You claimed I said the correlation referred to above was "close to 1".
Not even you can find any quote of mine which you can use to defend that
claim of yours. To be clear: you just flat out lied.

4) You made up claims about how listed GUI elements were "mostly" made by
Xerox, but not only did you fail to show this, your own resources
contradicted your claim. I showed other resources which showed I was, at
worst, mostly correct. You refused to acknowledge this.

5) In the past, when faced with your errors, you forge identities... and
have been caught forging quotes and claims from people even recently (such
as the "close to 1" claim and others).

6) You were busted forging IDs outside of COLA and contacting my employer...
though I have not shown you how you screwed up. You whine about my not
showing you this, and you deny it - but it has been proved you forge IDs in
COLA and you deny that, too. Hence your denials are meaningless. With that
said, I can understand why others would not accept that you forged IDs
outside of COLA, even though it is clearly in your character, given how I
have not shared the proof.

More information on much of the above can be seen here:

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/fe3d0fafc2cf69f4>
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/e6ba484d4b383eb7>

I am happy to provide even more evidence for other aspects of the above
(with the noted exception of how cc blew it when he forged IDs outside of
COLA and was busted contacting my employer under false pretenses)

--
🙈🙉🙊

[cc]

On Feb 8, 4:56 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> cc stated in post

> d788f37a-76a9-4287-9d3c-0ef655b75...@p13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com on 2/8/12

> 1:56 PM:
>
> ...
>
> >> Right
>

> > THANK YOU.
>
> All you left, from the above, was the very first word.  One word.

Since you can't seem to respond to a whole post of mine without
snipping out the most relevant parts and changing the meaning, I
thought it was only fair to return the favor. YOU'RE WELCOME.

[Snit]

cc stated in post
b589fee2-2944-40f4...@pm3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com on 2/8/12
3:05 PM:

[DFS]

On 2/8/2012 3:22 PM, Snit wrote:

> You claimed I said the correlation was "close to 1", which I never
> said. Now you are running from that claim as fast as you can.

You guys seem to need a referee in every thread.

You never said the exact phrase "close to 1". You said "The correlation
is pretty easy to see ... even if not an exact 1:1 correlation...".

'Not exactly 1' is not exactly 'close to 1' but it's close enough to
'close to 1' for me.

+1 for cc

Also, the concepts of correlation and causality are easy to understand,
but also easy to confuse. Correlation measures the relationship between
variables or values, and causality says an event will result in another
event. So you can have correlation without causality, but not causality
without correlation.

Because of your arrogant claims of prediction and correlation, this is a
fairly interesting thread and I appreciate the discussion.
Unfortunately, I think you won't ever be able to [mathematically or
philosophically or reasonably] prove a correlation exists between
'increased focus on Linux usability' and 'increase in Linux users'. The
data (the history of Linux development, and the accompanying Linux user
base) doesn't support it. So far.

[Snit]

DFS stated in post jgv501$tq0$2...@dont-email.me on 2/8/12 5:45 PM:

> On 2/8/2012 3:22 PM, Snit wrote:
>
>> You claimed I said the correlation was "close to 1", which I never
>> said. Now you are running from that claim as fast as you can.
>
> You guys seem to need a referee in every thread.

No referee needed. The fact is cc lied - the above quote is merely one.

> You never said the exact phrase "close to 1". You said "The correlation
> is pretty easy to see ... even if not an exact 1:1 correlation...".
>
> 'Not exactly 1' is not exactly 'close to 1' but it's close enough to
> 'close to 1' for me.
>
> +1 for cc

A couple of reasons it makes *no* sense to say cc based his claim on that -
at least not in an honest way:

1) He made it clear he did not understand the term "1:1 correlation". Given
how he does not understand the term, he cannot use it to base his view on
that.

2) I acknowledged that there was a reasoned case against the strength of the
correlation... and that there was no real way to measure it... and I did so
in the very same sentence you refer to:

The correlation is pretty easy to see I (though you do make a
reasoned case against it, below)... even if not an exact 1:1
correlation (how does one measure the improvement in
usability? Has anyone looked at a graph of that compared to
usage numbers?).

I then clarified my meaning:

But the idea that there has been both a recent uptick in
desktop Linux usage *and* the fact that there have been some
pretty large changes in KDE, Gnome, and the UIs of some major
distros (Ubuntu and Mint come to mind) is well known.

So, sure, if you take that one phrase out of context, even from the sentence
it was in, and ignore the very next sentence, and accept that cc based his
view on a term he claimed to not understand, then, sure, you could have a
case.

3) But even before his "close to 1" claim, I clarified my views *again*.

What we do know, though, is that both of these things have
been happening: an increased focus on usability and in
increased user base (in terms of not just numbers but
percentages). This is *exactly* what one should expect,
though I have not - nor do I know of anyone else - who has
done the work to see how strong the correlation is.

So there is simply no way an *honest* person could believe my meaning was
what cc is saying it is. He is, undoubtedly, lying. He has *no* support
for himself - and the best you can do is to say if you look at a phrase I
used and take it out of context, and ignore the fact cc admitted he did not
understand it, then he could have at one point, assuming he did not
understand anything else I wrote, maybe believe his claim.

A pretty weak case in his defense. At best.

> Also, the concepts of correlation and causality are easy to understand,
> but also easy to confuse. Correlation measures the relationship between
> variables or values, and causality says an event will result in another
> event. So you can have correlation without causality, but not causality
> without correlation.

Ok, so it is easy for cc to have become confused. So why can't he just
admit to it? Why is he completely against *ever* admitting he made a
mistake?

> Because of your arrogant claims of prediction and correlation, this is a
> fairly interesting thread and I appreciate the discussion.
> Unfortunately, I think you won't ever be able to [mathematically or
> philosophically or reasonably] prove a correlation exists between
> 'increased focus on Linux usability' and 'increase in Linux users'.

For the correlation to exist there must exist two things:

1) An increased focus on usability (as has been seen by KDE, Gnome, Ubuntu,
and Mint)
2) An increased number of users (with a likely lag).

Which of those are you thinking is not well supported? Keep in mind I am
not claiming the focus on usability has not been without flaws nor am I
saying, in terms of the correlation, that there is a cause and effect
relationship (though, as a side note, I think it is pretty clear there is,
even though it is not the only variable effecting an increase in users).

> The data (the history of Linux development, and the accompanying Linux user
> base) doesn't support it. So far.

Can you explain your thinking on this? What part is not supported: the
focus on usability or the reported increase in users? I suppose you could
argue the increase is an error in reporting... that would be a reasoned
counter to my claim of a correlation.



--
🙈🙉🙊

[cc]

On Feb 8, 6:16 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> You
> have
> character

Awww, you're a sweetheart.

[DFS]

On 2/8/2012 8:50 PM, Snit wrote:
> DFS stated in post jgv501$tq0$2...@dont-email.me on 2/8/12 5:45 PM:
>
>> On 2/8/2012 3:22 PM, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> You claimed I said the correlation was "close to 1", which I never
>>> said. Now you are running from that claim as fast as you can.
>>
>> You guys seem to need a referee in every thread.
>
> No referee needed. The fact is cc lied - the above quote is merely one.

He may have lied somewhere, but claiming you said close to 1 is not a lie.

When discussing correlations, "not exactly 1:1" is by definition "close

to 1".



>> You never said the exact phrase "close to 1". You said "The correlation
>> is pretty easy to see ... even if not an exact 1:1 correlation...".
>>
>> 'Not exactly 1' is not exactly 'close to 1' but it's close enough to
>> 'close to 1' for me.
>>
>> +1 for cc
>
> A couple of reasons it makes *no* sense to say cc based his claim on that -
> at least not in an honest way:
>
> 1) He made it clear he did not understand the term "1:1 correlation". Given
> how he does not understand the term, he cannot use it to base his view on
> that.

Of course he understands the common phrase "1:1 correlation". Matter of
fact, he understood it so well that he pointed out your usage of "1:1
correlation" is technically invalid, and correlations are -1 to +1.

Sure it's pedantic, but pedantry is what you specialize in too.

> 2) I acknowledged that there was a reasoned case against the strength of the
> correlation... and that there was no real way to measure it... and I did so
> in the very same sentence you refer to:
>
> The correlation is pretty easy to see I (though you do make a
> reasoned case against it, below)... even if not an exact 1:1
> correlation (how does one measure the improvement in
> usability? Has anyone looked at a graph of that compared to
> usage numbers?).
>
> I then clarified my meaning:
>
> But the idea that there has been both a recent uptick in
> desktop Linux usage *and* the fact that there have been some
> pretty large changes in KDE, Gnome, and the UIs of some major
> distros (Ubuntu and Mint come to mind) is well known.

I agree with everything you said above. But if "there's no real way to
measure it", you can't prove it.

> So, sure, if you take that one phrase out of context, even from the sentence
> it was in, and ignore the very next sentence, and accept that cc based his
> view on a term he claimed to not understand, then, sure, you could have a
> case.

Nothing was taken out of context, and I don't see where cc said he
didn't understand something.

> 3) But even before his "close to 1" claim, I clarified my views *again*.
>
> What we do know, though, is that both of these things have
> been happening: an increased focus on usability and in
> increased user base (in terms of not just numbers but
> percentages). This is *exactly* what one should expect,
> though I have not - nor do I know of anyone else - who has
> done the work to see how strong the correlation is.

Actually "we" do not know there has been an increased focus on usability
in the recent past. We also don't yet know there's been a significant
increase in the user base. Only that one site shows 6 months of large
increases, but for the previous 7 years it hovered between 0.7% and 1.0%.

> So there is simply no way an *honest* person could believe my meaning was
> what cc is saying it is.

You can claim I'm dishonest all you want, but you can't prove it.

By saying "not exactly 1:1" you were saying the correlation was close to 1.

No big deal.

> He is, undoubtedly, lying. He has *no* support
> for himself - and the best you can do is to say if you look at a phrase I
> used and take it out of context, and ignore the fact cc admitted he did not
> understand it, then he could have at one point, assuming he did not
> understand anything else I wrote, maybe believe his claim.
>
> A pretty weak case in his defense. At best.

I disagree that he is undoubtedly lying, I disagree that something was
taken out of context, and I disagree that cc admitted to not
understanding something.

In fact, I could much more easily make the case you were lying when you
said to cc "the word 'correlation' has more than five letters and will
confuse you", and when you said to him "You just proved you do not know
what a correlation is."

Neither of your claims is true in the slightest - you just like to argue
with and insult cc (as I do with some bird-brained "advocates").

>> Also, the concepts of correlation and causality are easy to understand,
>> but also easy to confuse. Correlation measures the relationship between
>> variables or values, and causality says an event will result in another
>> event. So you can have correlation without causality, but not causality
>> without correlation.
>
> Ok, so it is easy for cc to have become confused. So why can't he just
> admit to it? Why is he completely against *ever* admitting he made a
> mistake?

You'll have to take that up with him. Maybe he has an ego problem.
Probably he would admit he's wrong if it wasn't you he was arguing with.

By the same token, I don't hear you admitting to a mistake in your
arrogant insistence ("my predictions have come true", "what we do know")
that there is a correlation between increased focus on usability and the
6-month user growth anomaly. It can't be proven.

>> Because of your arrogant claims of prediction and correlation, this is a
>> fairly interesting thread and I appreciate the discussion.
>> Unfortunately, I think you won't ever be able to [mathematically or
>> philosophically or reasonably] prove a correlation exists between
>> 'increased focus on Linux usability' and 'increase in Linux users'.
>
> For the correlation to exist there must exist two things:
>
> 1) An increased focus on usability (as has been seen by KDE, Gnome, Ubuntu,
> and Mint)
> 2) An increased number of users (with a likely lag).
>
> Which of those are you thinking is not well supported? Keep in mind I am
> not claiming the focus on usability has not been without flaws nor am I
> saying, in terms of the correlation, that there is a cause and effect
> relationship (though, as a side note, I think it is pretty clear there is,
> even though it is not the only variable effecting an increase in users).
>
>
>> The data (the history of Linux development, and the accompanying Linux user
>> base) doesn't support it. So far.
>
> Can you explain your thinking on this? What part is not supported: the
> focus on usability or the reported increase in users? I suppose you could
> argue the increase is an error in reporting... that would be a reasoned
> counter to my claim of a correlation.

Neither part is supported. The entire 20-year history of Linux (or any
software) development is a focus on usability, and there's no evidence
it's increased in the past year or 6 months. And the recent enormous
uptick in Linux users on marketshare.hitslink.com is not seen on other
webhit counter sites.

[Snit]

cc stated in post
d3abfcf4-f3b2-438b...@og8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com on 2/9/12
6:44 AM:

[Snit]

DFS stated in post jh0l9a$gng$3...@dont-email.me on 2/9/12 7:29 AM:

> On 2/8/2012 8:50 PM, Snit wrote:
>> DFS stated in post jgv501$tq0$2...@dont-email.me on 2/8/12 5:45 PM:
>>
>>> On 2/8/2012 3:22 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> You claimed I said the correlation was "close to 1", which I never
>>>> said. Now you are running from that claim as fast as you can.
>>>
>>> You guys seem to need a referee in every thread.
>>
>> No referee needed. The fact is cc lied - the above quote is merely one.
>
> He may have lied somewhere, but claiming you said close to 1 is not a lie.
>
> When discussing correlations, "not exactly 1:1" is by definition "close
> to 1".

As discussed, this can only be used as an excuse if you ignore not just the
general context, but the rest of the sentence.

In other words: it is not honest. There is no way it can be honest.

>>> You never said the exact phrase "close to 1". You said "The correlation
>>> is pretty easy to see ... even if not an exact 1:1 correlation...".
>>>
>>> 'Not exactly 1' is not exactly 'close to 1' but it's close enough to
>>> 'close to 1' for me.
>>>
>>> +1 for cc
>>
>> A couple of reasons it makes *no* sense to say cc based his claim on that -
>> at least not in an honest way:
>>
>> 1) He made it clear he did not understand the term "1:1 correlation". Given
>> how he does not understand the term, he cannot use it to base his view on
>> that.
>
> Of course he understands the common phrase "1:1 correlation". Matter of
> fact, he understood it so well that he pointed out your usage of "1:1
> correlation" is technically invalid, and correlations are -1 to +1.
>
> Sure it's pedantic, but pedantry is what you specialize in too.

He claimed to not understand it.

>> 2) I acknowledged that there was a reasoned case against the strength of the
>> correlation... and that there was no real way to measure it... and I did so
>> in the very same sentence you refer to:
>>
>> The correlation is pretty easy to see I (though you do make a
>> reasoned case against it, below)... even if not an exact 1:1
>> correlation (how does one measure the improvement in
>> usability? Has anyone looked at a graph of that compared to
>> usage numbers?).
>>
>> I then clarified my meaning:
>>
>> But the idea that there has been both a recent uptick in
>> desktop Linux usage *and* the fact that there have been some
>> pretty large changes in KDE, Gnome, and the UIs of some major
>> distros (Ubuntu and Mint come to mind) is well known.
>
> I agree with everything you said above. But if "there's no real way to
> measure it", you can't prove it.

And hence the "close to 1" claim is a lie.

>> So, sure, if you take that one phrase out of context, even from the sentence
>> it was in, and ignore the very next sentence, and accept that cc based his
>> view on a term he claimed to not understand, then, sure, you could have a
>> case.
>
> Nothing was taken out of context, and I don't see where cc said he
> didn't understand something.

He claimed to not understand what was meant by 1:1.

>> 3) But even before his "close to 1" claim, I clarified my views *again*.
>>
>> What we do know, though, is that both of these things have
>> been happening: an increased focus on usability and in
>> increased user base (in terms of not just numbers but
>> percentages). This is *exactly* what one should expect,
>> though I have not - nor do I know of anyone else - who has
>> done the work to see how strong the correlation is.
>
>
> Actually "we" do not know there has been an increased focus on usability
> in the recent past.

Wow. OK, we can look at KDE and Gnome and Ubuntu and Mint and see what
*they* say. Would take some research and it would, of course, back my
claims. But we can also pretend to not know these things and have to look.

> We also don't yet know there's been a significant
> increase in the user base. Only that one site shows 6 months of large
> increases, but for the previous 7 years it hovered between 0.7% and 1.0%.

You have put the usage numbers in question and I have accepted that there
many be some anomalies in the data... still, I think we would be hard
pressed to find significant contrary data.

>> So there is simply no way an *honest* person could believe my meaning was
>> what cc is saying it is.
>
> You can claim I'm dishonest all you want, but you can't prove it.
>
> By saying "not exactly 1:1" you were saying the correlation was close to 1.
>
> No big deal.

Again: see above. Your claim is true only if you ignore all context and
meaning.

>> He is, undoubtedly, lying. He has *no* support
>> for himself - and the best you can do is to say if you look at a phrase I
>> used and take it out of context, and ignore the fact cc admitted he did not
>> understand it, then he could have at one point, assuming he did not
>> understand anything else I wrote, maybe believe his claim.
>>
>> A pretty weak case in his defense. At best.
>
> I disagree that he is undoubtedly lying, I disagree that something was
> taken out of context, and I disagree that cc admitted to not
> understanding something.

I do not see how this is relevant to the fact he lied.

> In fact, I could much more easily make the case you were lying when you
> said to cc "the word 'correlation' has more than five letters and will
> confuse you", and when you said to him "You just proved you do not know
> what a correlation is."

He jumped to the idea of a cause and effect. I have shown this. He had no
idea what the term meant. Again, this has been proved.

> Neither of your claims is true in the slightest - you just like to argue
> with and insult cc (as I do with some bird-brained "advocates").

I do not see how you denial changes the truth of my claims. And they are
true, as the *data* shows.

>>> Also, the concepts of correlation and causality are easy to understand,
>>> but also easy to confuse. Correlation measures the relationship between
>>> variables or values, and causality says an event will result in another
>>> event. So you can have correlation without causality, but not causality
>>> without correlation.
>>
>> Ok, so it is easy for cc to have become confused. So why can't he just
>> admit to it? Why is he completely against *ever* admitting he made a
>> mistake?
>
> You'll have to take that up with him. Maybe he has an ego problem.

Of course he does. This is not in question.

> Probably he would admit he's wrong if it wasn't you he was arguing with.

Maybe. Yeah, he hates how I pointed out how he was ignorant about UI issues
so he freaked out. Oh well.

> By the same token, I don't hear you admitting to a mistake in your
> arrogant insistence ("my predictions have come true", "what we do know")
> that there is a correlation between increased focus on usability and the
> 6-month user growth anomaly. It can't be proven.

My predictions have come true - at least based on the best data:

* There *has* been a focus on usability
* There *had* been a reported increase in users

This was my prediction. This has happened. Now my prediction was not very
specific as far as what type of usability improvements not what level of
usage increase... and I accept that as a weakness of my prediction and have
talked about it. But I have also noted the common sense connection between
making things more usable / productive and getting more users (the latter
being cause and effect).

>>> Because of your arrogant claims of prediction and correlation, this is a
>>> fairly interesting thread and I appreciate the discussion.
>>> Unfortunately, I think you won't ever be able to [mathematically or
>>> philosophically or reasonably] prove a correlation exists between
>>> 'increased focus on Linux usability' and 'increase in Linux users'.
>>
>> For the correlation to exist there must exist two things:
>>
>> 1) An increased focus on usability (as has been seen by KDE, Gnome, Ubuntu,
>> and Mint)
>> 2) An increased number of users (with a likely lag).
>>
>> Which of those are you thinking is not well supported? Keep in mind I am
>> not claiming the focus on usability has not been without flaws nor am I
>> saying, in terms of the correlation, that there is a cause and effect
>> relationship (though, as a side note, I think it is pretty clear there is,
>> even though it is not the only variable effecting an increase in users).

You ignored this question... though above you do say you doubt the increase
in users. For now, then, we can accept that there is a *reported* increase.

>>> The data (the history of Linux development, and the accompanying Linux user
>>> base) doesn't support it. So far.
>>
>> Can you explain your thinking on this? What part is not supported: the
>> focus on usability or the reported increase in users? I suppose you could
>> argue the increase is an error in reporting... that would be a reasoned
>> counter to my claim of a correlation.
>
> Neither part is supported. The entire 20-year history of Linux (or any
> software) development is a focus on usability, and there's no evidence
> it's increased in the past year or 6 months. And the recent enormous
> uptick in Linux users on marketshare.hitslink.com is not seen on other
> webhit counter sites.

Might I suggest you look at the data?



--
🙈🙉🙊

[cc]

On Feb 9, 10:46 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> DFS stated in post jh0l9a$gn...@dont-email.me on 2/9/12 7:29 AM:

>
>
>
>
> > Of course he understands the common phrase "1:1 correlation".  Matter of
> > fact, he understood it so well that he pointed out your usage of "1:1
> > correlation" is technically invalid, and correlations are -1 to +1.
>
> > Sure it's pedantic, but pedantry is what you specialize in too.
>
> He claimed to not understand it.
>
>

Where? I pointed out the correct (or pedantic if you insist)
definition, like DFS mentions above. If you took that to mean I didn't
understand, then I'm sorry I confused you.

>
> > Neither part is supported.  The entire 20-year history of Linux (or any
> > software) development is a focus on usability, and there's no evidence
> > it's increased in the past year or 6 months.  And the recent enormous
> > uptick in Linux users on marketshare.hitslink.com is not seen on other
> > webhit counter sites.
>
> Might I suggest you look at the data?
>

Come on DFS, look at the data for fuck's sake! Can't you see his
prediction is true? It's OBVIOUS. The only way he could possibly be
wrong is if there was an error in the reports. DUH.

[Snit]

cc stated in post
112739b0-af57-4d21...@qt7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com on 2/9/12
10:33 AM:

> On Feb 9, 10:46 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> DFS stated in post jh0l9a$gn...@dont-email.me on 2/9/12 7:29 AM:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Of course he understands the common phrase "1:1 correlation".  Matter of
>>> fact, he understood it so well that he pointed out your usage of "1:1
>>> correlation" is technically invalid, and correlations are -1 to +1.
>>
>>> Sure it's pedantic, but pedantry is what you specialize in too.
>>
>> He claimed to not understand it.
>>
>>
>
> Where? I pointed out the correct (or pedantic if you insist)
> definition, like DFS mentions above. If you took that to mean I didn't
> understand, then I'm sorry I confused you.

cc:
-----
1:1 correlation is not even a thing.
-----

You had no idea what it was. Well, you claimed that. You did, as DFS
pointed out, lie about it - you did know it was "a thing", but you claimed
not to.

[cc]

On Feb 9, 1:07 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> cc stated in post

> 112739b0-af57-4d21-a32e-16a72956d...@qt7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com on 2/9/12

> 10:33 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 9, 10:46 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> DFS stated in post jh0l9a$gn...@dont-email.me on 2/9/12 7:29 AM:
>
> >>> Of course he understands the common phrase "1:1 correlation".  Matter of
> >>> fact, he understood it so well that he pointed out your usage of "1:1
> >>> correlation" is technically invalid, and correlations are -1 to +1.
>
> >>> Sure it's pedantic, but pedantry is what you specialize in too.
>
> >> He claimed to not understand it.
>
> > Where? I pointed out the correct (or pedantic if you insist)
> > definition, like DFS mentions above. If you took that to mean I didn't
> > understand, then I'm sorry I confused you.
>
>   cc:
>     -----
>     1:1 correlation is not even a thing.
>     -----

Technically it's not a thing. There is 1:1 correspondance and
correlation values that range from -1 to 1.

> You had no idea what it was.  Well, you claimed that.  You did, as DFS
> pointed out, lie about it - you did know it was "a thing", but you claimed
> not to.
>

I must have missed where DFS said I lied about it, where was that? But
my very next sentence I gave you the correct definition for the range
of correlation values, so I'm not sure where you get that I claimed
not to understand what you were saying. Obviously I understood, and I
corrected you.

[Snit]

cc stated in post
5822e77c-53fa-46c0...@c21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com on 2/9/12
11:45 AM:

> On Feb 9, 1:07 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> cc stated in post
>> 112739b0-af57-4d21-a32e-16a72956d...@qt7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com on 2/9/12
>> 10:33 AM:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 9, 10:46 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> DFS stated in post jh0l9a$gn...@dont-email.me on 2/9/12 7:29 AM:
>>
>>>>> Of course he understands the common phrase "1:1 correlation".  Matter of
>>>>> fact, he understood it so well that he pointed out your usage of "1:1
>>>>> correlation" is technically invalid, and correlations are -1 to +1.
>>
>>>>> Sure it's pedantic, but pedantry is what you specialize in too.
>>
>>>> He claimed to not understand it.
>>
>>> Where? I pointed out the correct (or pedantic if you insist)
>>> definition, like DFS mentions above. If you took that to mean I didn't
>>> understand, then I'm sorry I confused you.
>>
>>   cc:
>>     -----
>>     1:1 correlation is not even a thing.
>>     -----
>
> Technically it's not a thing.

But yet you claim to understand it.

Ok, fine - I will give you that with being pedantic and ignoring context, an
idiot could believe your "close to 1" claim. That fits you so maybe you
were not lying.

So let's drop that claim... you were merely being stupid, not dishonest.

How about not seeing that when two variables change there is a correlation?

How about your jumping to cause and effect when a correlation was discussed?

How about your insisting Xerox invented things which have been shown to be
done by Apple?

How about your forging of IDs, both in and out of COLA?

How about your contacting my employer because you lost Usenet debates?


You have no excuses for those.

...


--
🙈🙉🙊

[cc]

On Feb 9, 2:55 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> cc stated in post

> 5822e77c-53fa-46c0-9751-3a5000dbe...@c21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com on 2/9/12

> 11:45 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 9, 1:07 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> cc stated in post
> >> 112739b0-af57-4d21-a32e-16a72956d...@qt7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com on 2/9/12
> >> 10:33 AM:
>
> >>> On Feb 9, 10:46 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>> DFS stated in post jh0l9a$gn...@dont-email.me on 2/9/12 7:29 AM:
>
> >>>>> Of course he understands the common phrase "1:1 correlation".  Matter of
> >>>>> fact, he understood it so well that he pointed out your usage of "1:1
> >>>>> correlation" is technically invalid, and correlations are -1 to +1.
>
> >>>>> Sure it's pedantic, but pedantry is what you specialize in too.
>
> >>>> He claimed to not understand it.
>
> >>> Where? I pointed out the correct (or pedantic if you insist)
> >>> definition, like DFS mentions above. If you took that to mean I didn't
> >>> understand, then I'm sorry I confused you.
>
> >>   cc:
> >>     -----
> >>     1:1 correlation is not even a thing.
> >>     -----
>
> > Technically it's not a thing.
>
> But yet you claim to understand it.
>

Right. What range of values does correlation have again?

[Snit]

cc stated in post
e80f56d0-9f06-44de...@p7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com on 2/9/12
1:14 PM:

I could not care *any* less about your stupid games. None.

I noted a correlation. You confused that with cause and effect.
Repeatedly. As proved. You then said I claimed the correlation was much
stronger than I did, and DFS helped show (because you could not) how if you
are an idiot who cannot understand context and takes a phrase from a single
sentence you could come to the confusion you did. As you do this, though,
you run from your idiotic comments about Xerox inventing a whole list of
things that evidence shows were at least mostly invented at Apple, you
ignore the fact you repeatedly forge IDs (in and out of COLA) and on and on
and on. So now you want to win some Usenet "point" based on your own lack
of understanding context and my wording something about a correlation in a
way which was not perfect.

Shove your games up your ass you lying asshole. Got it yet?


--
🙈🙉🙊