Linux browser trends examined - Linux

This is a discussion on Linux browser trends examined - Linux ; A while back I posted some claims about growth of linux being supported by published web stats. Someone asked for supporting evidence, and I meant follow up with links but became buried with work. I've finally had some spare time ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 70

Thread: Linux browser trends examined

  1. Linux browser trends examined

    A while back I posted some claims about growth of linux being
    supported by published web stats. Someone asked for supporting
    evidence, and I meant follow up with links but became buried
    with work. I've finally had some spare time to dig into it,
    but rather than post in that now probably cold thread, I'll
    start a new one.

    I've collected up stats from three public sources, plugged them
    into an OpenOffice spreadsheet and graphed the trends. They
    very clearly show what I've been seeing for a while: even web
    stats that show relatively low Linux share show consistent
    growth over time. Also, as one would expect, sources with
    very large samples collected from a broad demographic mix of
    sites show a rather smooth growth line compared to a smaller
    sample from one site. The lowest share I've found is the
    0.67 percent value from hitslink. It is not hard to find
    stats in the 1 to 2 percent range. This is a considerable
    improvement from a few years ago when 0.2 was the number being
    thrown around. Just for fun, I've put the graphs on a web
    page, including links to original source data:

    http://www.glaci.com/linuxstats.html

    Enjoy,

    Thad
    --
    Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
    all the ingredients on the label.

  2. Re: Linux browser trends examined

    "thad05@tux.glaci.delete-this.com" stated
    in post 5evbb5-3bo.ln1@tux.glaci.com on 3/20/08 10:59 PM:

    > A while back I posted some claims about growth of linux being
    > supported by published web stats. Someone asked for supporting
    > evidence, and I meant follow up with links but became buried
    > with work. I've finally had some spare time to dig into it,
    > but rather than post in that now probably cold thread, I'll
    > start a new one.
    >
    > I've collected up stats from three public sources, plugged them
    > into an OpenOffice spreadsheet and graphed the trends. They
    > very clearly show what I've been seeing for a while: even web
    > stats that show relatively low Linux share show consistent
    > growth over time. Also, as one would expect, sources with
    > very large samples collected from a broad demographic mix of
    > sites show a rather smooth growth line compared to a smaller
    > sample from one site. The lowest share I've found is the
    > 0.67 percent value from hitslink. It is not hard to find
    > stats in the 1 to 2 percent range. This is a considerable
    > improvement from a few years ago when 0.2 was the number being
    > thrown around. Just for fun, I've put the graphs on a web
    > page, including links to original source data:
    >
    > http://www.glaci.com/linuxstats.html
    >
    > Enjoy,
    >
    > Thad


    Thanks... puts into some question the idea that Linux desktop usage is still
    under 1%... but seems it is likely that it is still under 2%. Thanks for
    the data.


    --
    Do you ever wake up in a cold sweat wondering what the world would be
    like if the Lamarckian view of evolutionary had ended up being accepted
    over Darwin's?


  3. Re: Linux browser trends examined

    DFS wrote:

    > thad05@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:
    >> A while back I posted some claims about growth of linux being
    >> supported by published web stats. Someone asked for supporting
    >> evidence, and I meant follow up with links but became buried
    >> with work. I've finally had some spare time to dig into it,
    >> but rather than post in that now probably cold thread, I'll
    >> start a new one.
    >>
    >> I've collected up stats from three public sources, plugged them
    >> into an OpenOffice spreadsheet and graphed the trends. They
    >> very clearly show what I've been seeing for a while: even web
    >> stats that show relatively low Linux share show consistent
    >> growth over time. Also, as one would expect, sources with
    >> very large samples collected from a broad demographic mix of
    >> sites show a rather smooth growth line compared to a smaller
    >> sample from one site. The lowest share I've found is the
    >> 0.67 percent value from hitslink. It is not hard to find
    >> stats in the 1 to 2 percent range. This is a considerable
    >> improvement from a few years ago when 0.2 was the number being
    >> thrown around. Just for fun, I've put the graphs on a web
    >> page, including links to original source data:
    >>
    >> http://www.glaci.com/linuxstats.html
    >>
    >> Enjoy,
    >>
    >> Thad

    >
    >
    > Thanks for the ammo, Mercenary: after 10+ years of trying to give itself
    > away, less than 1 in 100 users chooses Linux.


    An exclusive club.

    When people have a choice to buy preloaded linux then things will improve.
    But choice is pretty hard to come by.

    > Also, you said "...what I find interest is the obvious long term trend."
    > Since when is 11 months long-term? If you had used the full date range
    > available for Linux, your graph would rise faster (better revise it and
    > get that little bit of oomph).
    >
    > Only the hitslink numbers are meaningful. w3schools is just one site,
    > with a technical focus.


    hitslink isn't even meaningful.

    No one really knows how many people use linux.

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  4. Re: Linux browser trends examined

    DFS wrote:
    >
    > Thanks for the ammo, Mercenary: after 10+ years of trying to give itself
    > away, less than 1 in 100 users chooses Linux.


    Actually, looks to me that it could be as much as 2 or 3 per 100 if
    you look at a broad enough spectrum of stats.

    > Also, you said "...what I find interest is the obvious long term trend."
    > Since when is 11 months long-term? If you had used the full date range
    > available for Linux, your graph would rise faster (better revise it and get
    > that little bit of oomph).


    I used the info I had readily available, though my memory of older
    stats are that they show similar trends. I think noticeable desktop
    growth only goes back a few years, not much before Ubuntu was
    released. Prior to that it was so low any growth would be lost in
    the statistical noise. Of course prior to that the big growth was
    in the server market. I always said I thought the desktop growth
    curve would look like the server curve, just lagging it by some
    number of years.

    > Only the hitslink numbers are meaningful. w3schools is just one site, with
    > a technical focus.


    You've got some sort of problem with the w3counter.com numbers other
    than they are larger than you like? It seems they use a rather large
    and diverse sample and are thus rather credible. More than 20
    million visits aggregated from almost 8000 sites yielding 2 percent
    linux share in their most recent sample. OK, not up to even Mac levels
    but certainly better than the 'less than 1 percent' thrown around
    by some around here. More importantly, the growth rate is consistent
    with the what hitslink shows.

    Cheers,

    Thad
    --
    Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
    all the ingredients on the label.

  5. Re: Linux browser trends examined

    thad05@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:
    > A while back I posted some claims about growth of linux being
    > supported by published web stats. Someone asked for supporting
    > evidence, and I meant follow up with links but became buried
    > with work. I've finally had some spare time to dig into it,
    > but rather than post in that now probably cold thread, I'll
    > start a new one.
    >
    > I've collected up stats from three public sources, plugged them
    > into an OpenOffice spreadsheet and graphed the trends. They
    > very clearly show what I've been seeing for a while: even web
    > stats that show relatively low Linux share show consistent
    > growth over time. Also, as one would expect, sources with
    > very large samples collected from a broad demographic mix of
    > sites show a rather smooth growth line compared to a smaller
    > sample from one site. The lowest share I've found is the
    > 0.67 percent value from hitslink. It is not hard to find
    > stats in the 1 to 2 percent range. This is a considerable
    > improvement from a few years ago when 0.2 was the number being
    > thrown around. Just for fun, I've put the graphs on a web
    > page, including links to original source data:
    >
    > http://www.glaci.com/linuxstats.html
    >
    > Enjoy,
    >
    > Thad



    Thanks for the ammo, Mercenary: after 10+ years of trying to give itself
    away, less than 1 in 100 users chooses Linux.

    Also, you said "...what I find interest is the obvious long term trend."
    Since when is 11 months long-term? If you had used the full date range
    available for Linux, your graph would rise faster (better revise it and get
    that little bit of oomph).

    Only the hitslink numbers are meaningful. w3schools is just one site, with
    a technical focus.




  6. Re: Linux browser trends examined


    "Gregory Shearman" wrote in message
    news:2695936.enn4qIVRms@netscape.net...
    >
    > No one really knows how many people use linux.
    >

    Nor does it really matter. 0%, 1%, 2%, even 3% are effectively zero in
    terms of sparking any mass migration to Linux on the desktop. For marketing
    purposes, you have two categories, i.e. Windows and "others".


  7. Re: Linux browser trends examined

    On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:07:21 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:

    > "Gregory Shearman" wrote in message
    > news:2695936.enn4qIVRms@netscape.net...
    >>
    >> No one really knows how many people use linux.
    >>

    > Nor does it really matter. 0%, 1%, 2%, even 3% are effectively zero in
    > terms of sparking any mass migration to Linux on the desktop. For
    > marketing purposes, you have two categories, i.e. Windows and "others".


    Actually it is again becoming Windows, OS X and others.

    --
    Rick

  8. Re: Linux browser trends examined

    Gregory Shearman wrote:
    > DFS wrote:


    >> Thanks for the ammo, Mercenary: after 10+ years of trying to give
    >> itself away, less than 1 in 100 users chooses Linux.

    >
    > An exclusive club.


    ....of woman haters http://lonien.de/wjl/images/jpg/p200602260034.jpg



    > When people have a choice to buy preloaded linux then things will
    > improve. But choice is pretty hard to come by.


    Wal-mart just chose to remove one such choice because when offered a choice
    people didn't choose that choice.

    You cola wacks should pool your funds and start a Linux system vendor, and
    watch your tiny fortunes grow to no fortunes.



    >> Also, you said "...what I find interest is the obvious long term
    >> trend." Since when is 11 months long-term? If you had used the full
    >> date range available for Linux, your graph would rise faster (better
    >> revise it and get that little bit of oomph).
    >>
    >> Only the hitslink numbers are meaningful. w3schools is just one
    >> site, with a technical focus.

    >
    > hitslink isn't even meaningful.


    It's very meaningful.



    > No one really knows how many people use linux.


    We know this for sure: not many.




  9. Re: Linux browser trends examined

    amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    > Nor does it really matter. 0%, 1%, 2%, even 3% are effectively zero in
    > terms of sparking any mass migration to Linux on the desktop. For marketing
    > purposes, you have two categories, i.e. Windows and "others".


    You can keep saying that to yourself if it makes you feel better,
    but as Linux marches into solid single digit territory with a clear
    long term growth trend, it makes software vendors that much more
    likely to include Linux in their cross platform plans. Increased
    application choice makes the platform more viable to users which
    in turn reinforces the growth trend. A larger install base also
    adds to the viral growth through peer advocacy and increased
    visibility.

    Of course there will not be a mass migration... as I've said many
    times, it takes years to churn an entrenched install base. Just
    look at how long Netware stuck around long after the common wisdom
    said it was 'dead'. But the desktop Linux trend is clear, and
    just like server Linux, is defying the predictions of the critics.
    Linux is not 'dying out' or 'going nowhere'. It is clearly
    improving and growing.

    I find it interesting that success for MS has now essentially
    been redefined from 'crushing Linux' to 'holding off the mass
    migration'.

    Thad
    --
    Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
    all the ingredients on the label.

  10. Re: Linux browser trends examined

    On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:38:55 -0500, DFS wrote:


    >
    > Thanks for the ammo, Mercenary: after 10+ years of trying to give itself
    > away, less than 1 in 100 users chooses Linux.
    >
    > Also, you said "...what I find interest is the obvious long term trend."
    > Since when is 11 months long-term? If you had used the full date range
    > available for Linux, your graph would rise faster (better revise it and get
    > that little bit of oomph).
    >
    > Only the hitslink numbers are meaningful. w3schools is just one site, with
    > a technical focus.


    I think the BBC study which pegged Linux at about 0.8 percent is probably
    in the ballpark because the BBC is not a techie site where Linux would show
    inflated numbers nor is it a really a site targeted at specific types of
    people.

    It's worldwide although I suspect the highest market share is from GB and
    the European community.
    This should actually help Linux as Linux seems to be more popular over
    there than in USA.

    At any rate, no matter how you slice it, the market share for desktop Linux
    is horrendous.

    It's free and virtually nobody is using it.

    The Linux community needs to sit down and suck it up and figure out what is
    wrong with Linux and fix it.

    Releasing one faulty distribution after another is not the way to fix it.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  11. Re: Linux browser trends examined

    * thad05@tux.glaci.delete-this.com peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > I've collected up stats from three public sources, plugged them
    > into an OpenOffice spreadsheet and graphed the trends. They
    > very clearly show what I've been seeing for a while: even web
    > stats that show relatively low Linux share show consistent
    > growth over time. Also, as one would expect, sources with
    > very large samples collected from a broad demographic mix of
    > sites show a rather smooth growth line compared to a smaller
    > sample from one site. The lowest share I've found is the
    > 0.67 percent value from hitslink. It is not hard to find
    > stats in the 1 to 2 percent range. This is a considerable
    > improvement from a few years ago when 0.2 was the number being
    > thrown around. Just for fun, I've put the graphs on a web
    > page, including links to original source data:
    >
    > http://www.glaci.com/linuxstats.html


    Cool stats, thanx!

    --
    At Microsoft there are lots of brilliant ideas but the image is that they
    all come from the top - I'm afraid that's not quite right.
    -- Bill Gates

  12. Re: Linux browser trends examined

    "DFS" writes:

    > Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >> DFS wrote:

    >
    >>> Thanks for the ammo, Mercenary: after 10+ years of trying to give
    >>> itself away, less than 1 in 100 users chooses Linux.

    >>
    >> An exclusive club.

    >
    > ...of woman haters http://lonien.de/wjl/images/jpg/p200602260034.jpg
    >
    >
    >
    >> When people have a choice to buy preloaded linux then things will
    >> improve. But choice is pretty hard to come by.

    >
    > Wal-mart just chose to remove one such choice because when offered a choice
    > people didn't choose that choice.
    >
    > You cola wacks should pool your funds and start a Linux system vendor, and
    > watch your tiny fortunes grow to no fortunes.
    >
    >
    >
    >>> Also, you said "...what I find interest is the obvious long term
    >>> trend." Since when is 11 months long-term? If you had used the full
    >>> date range available for Linux, your graph would rise faster (better
    >>> revise it and get that little bit of oomph).
    >>>
    >>> Only the hitslink numbers are meaningful. w3schools is just one
    >>> site, with a technical focus.

    >>
    >> hitslink isn't even meaningful.

    >
    > It's very meaningful.


    And its numbers tie in more with the BBC which says 0.8%.

    A roughly 0.2% boost during Ubuntu hysteria. One user in every 500.

    This is not good whichever way you want to cut and dice it.


    --
    "Do a screen-shot of a text. Now disable anti-aliasing. Do again screen-shot of same text. Compare both. They are exactly the same."
    Peter Koehlmann, COLA, explaining Anti Aliasing ....
    http://tinyurl.com/33672q

  13. Re: Linux browser trends examined

    thad05@tux.glaci.delete-this.com writes:

    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >> Nor does it really matter. 0%, 1%, 2%, even 3% are effectively zero in
    >> terms of sparking any mass migration to Linux on the desktop. For marketing
    >> purposes, you have two categories, i.e. Windows and "others".

    >
    > You can keep saying that to yourself if it makes you feel better,
    > but as Linux marches into solid single digit territory with a clear
    > long term growth trend, it makes software vendors that much more


    The thing that scares me is that you take this 0.2% growth during Linux
    prime time as a positive thing. It is disastrous.


    --
    "Do a screen-shot of a text. Now disable anti-aliasing. Do again screen-shot of same text. Compare both. They are exactly the same."
    Peter Koehlmann, COLA, explaining Anti Aliasing ....
    http://tinyurl.com/33672q

  14. Re: Linux browser trends examined

    * thad05@tux.glaci.delete-this.com peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > DFS wrote:
    >>
    >> Thanks for the ammo, Mercenary:


    Just wanted to point out this term used by DFS, the cheap-shot artist
    who nonetheless misses the target.

    >> after 10+ years of trying to give itself
    >> away, less than 1 in 100 users chooses Linux.

    >
    > Actually, looks to me that it could be as much as 2 or 3 per 100 if
    > you look at a broad enough spectrum of stats.


    And leave the Microsoft-besotted U.S. out of the equation .

    Here's another thing. Those stats only get at people using the web for
    browsing. Also, what if most of the Linux users also used Windows, thus
    diluting the Linux stats? Are we going to start counting "half-Linux"
    users?

    What about people who perforce use Windows during the day, but have
    Linux systems at home, but are then don't do much browsing, but instead
    do other stuff with the box.

    If you just count browser usage, you leave a lot out of the equation.
    How about NNTP usage? FTP? Robots? Peer-to-peer? On-line gaming?

    And it all takes place in the presence of a still-powerful consumer
    desktop monopoly that is, as per its former CEO, always "running scared"
    and using marketing and business tactics that match its emotional state.
    A company that astroturfs the web with advertising and propaganda.
    Whose proponents astroturf blogs, article commentary, and other forums.

    >> Only the hitslink numbers are meaningful. w3schools is just one site, with
    >> a technical focus.

    >
    > You've got some sort of problem with the w3counter.com numbers other
    > than they are larger than you like? It seems they use a rather large
    > and diverse sample and are thus rather credible. More than 20
    > million visits aggregated from almost 8000 sites yielding 2 percent
    > linux share in their most recent sample. OK, not up to even Mac levels
    > but certainly better than the 'less than 1 percent' thrown around
    > by some around here. More importantly, the growth rate is consistent
    > with the what hitslink shows.


    The growth today of Apple systems and Linux systems is something to be
    welcomed with joy.

    Not with the snivelling arrogance of a "mercenary" who makes his living
    off of Microsoft software and then comes here to defend his status quo
    using ridicule and cheap-shots.

    --
    You see, antiquated ideas of kindness and generosity are simply bugs that
    must be programmed out of our world. And these cold, unfeeling machines will
    show us the way.
    -- Bill Gates

  15. Re: Linux browser trends examined


    wrote in message
    news:q65cb5-e5s.ln1@tux.glaci.com...
    > DFS wrote:
    >>
    >> Thanks for the ammo, Mercenary: after 10+ years of trying to give itself
    >> away, less than 1 in 100 users chooses Linux.

    >
    > Actually, looks to me that it could be as much as 2 or 3 per 100 if
    > you look at a broad enough spectrum of stats.
    >
    >> Also, you said "...what I find interest is the obvious long term trend."
    >> Since when is 11 months long-term? If you had used the full date range
    >> available for Linux, your graph would rise faster (better revise it and
    >> get
    >> that little bit of oomph).

    >
    > I used the info I had readily available, though my memory of older
    > stats are that they show similar trends. I think noticeable desktop
    > growth only goes back a few years, not much before Ubuntu was
    > released. Prior to that it was so low any growth would be lost in
    > the statistical noise. Of course prior to that the big growth was
    > in the server market. I always said I thought the desktop growth
    > curve would look like the server curve, just lagging it by some
    > number of years.
    >
    >> Only the hitslink numbers are meaningful. w3schools is just one site,
    >> with
    >> a technical focus.

    >



    > You've got some sort of problem with the w3counter.com numbers other
    > than they are larger than you like? It seems they use a rather large
    > and diverse sample and are thus rather credible.



    The problem is that w3counter will primarily measure "technical people" and
    technical people are more likely to be using linux than your average user.

    It's not all that different from going to a website that's MS-Office centric
    and using those web stats to draw a conclusion. The typical user attracted
    to a MS-Office site is more likely to be using Windows.

    People visiting a "programming" or development centric website are more
    likely to be using linux than the rest of the general population.

    To get neutral usage stats you need a site that would appeal equally to a
    wide cross-section of the population. Something like Google or eBay or CNN.




    > More than 20
    > million visits aggregated from almost 8000 sites yielding 2 percent
    > linux share in their most recent sample. OK, not up to even Mac levels
    > but certainly better than the 'less than 1 percent' thrown around
    > by some around here. More importantly, the growth rate is consistent
    > with the what hitslink shows.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Thad
    > --
    > Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
    > all the ingredients on the label.




    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  16. Re: Linux browser trends examined


    wrote in message
    news:i6scb5-v8h.ln1@tux.glaci.com...
    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >> Nor does it really matter. 0%, 1%, 2%, even 3% are effectively zero in
    >> terms of sparking any mass migration to Linux on the desktop. For
    >> marketing
    >> purposes, you have two categories, i.e. Windows and "others".

    >
    > You can keep saying that to yourself if it makes you feel better,
    > but as Linux marches into solid single digit territory with a clear
    > long term growth trend, it makes software vendors that much more
    > likely to include Linux in their cross platform plans. Increased
    > application choice makes the platform more viable to users which
    > in turn reinforces the growth trend. A larger install base also
    > adds to the viral growth through peer advocacy and increased
    > visibility.
    >
    > Of course there will not be a mass migration... as I've said many
    > times, it takes years to churn an entrenched install base. Just
    > look at how long Netware stuck around long after the common wisdom
    > said it was 'dead'. But the desktop Linux trend is clear, and
    > just like server Linux, is defying the predictions of the critics.
    > Linux is not 'dying out' or 'going nowhere'. It is clearly
    > improving and growing.
    >
    > I find it interesting that success for MS has now essentially
    > been redefined from 'crushing Linux' to 'holding off the mass
    > migration'.
    >
    > Thad
    > --
    > Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
    > all the ingredients on the label.


    Well, you keep your chin up! I particularly liked the "marches into solid
    single digit territory" and "viral growth through peer advocacy". I can
    hear "Sweet Cream Ladies" blaring in the background!


  17. Re: Linux browser trends examined

    Teranews fsckwit wrote:

    >>> Wal-mart just chose to remove one such choice because when offered a
    >>> choice people didn't choose that choice.

    >>
    >> No, they took the macines off the shelves because of low margins. They
    >> are still on the web.

    >
    >Which is precisely the point. The in-store linux computers was inventory
    >that Walmart had to buy, stock and sell. Except that nobody was interested
    >in buying it. Everything Walmart sells has low margins. They make it up in
    >quantity so this computer is no different. They dropped it because it sat
    >there and collected dust.


    Selling Linux boxes at WalMart, with no one to explain the difference
    to customers, was not a great idea.

    This has already been explained, Teranews Fsckwit.

    *plonk*


  18. Re: Linux browser trends examined


    "chrisv" wrote in message
    news:lll7u3pf7mbc34kb9j8f9fc6oja6j8c0qm@4ax.com...
    > Teranews fsckwit wrote:
    >
    >>>> Wal-mart just chose to remove one such choice because when offered a
    >>>> choice people didn't choose that choice.
    >>>
    >>> No, they took the macines off the shelves because of low margins. They
    >>> are still on the web.

    >>
    >>Which is precisely the point. The in-store linux computers was inventory
    >>that Walmart had to buy, stock and sell. Except that nobody was interested
    >>in buying it. Everything Walmart sells has low margins. They make it up in
    >>quantity so this computer is no different. They dropped it because it sat
    >>there and collected dust.

    >
    > Selling Linux boxes at WalMart, with no one to explain the difference
    > to customers, was not a great idea.


    Why would anyone need to explain the difference. According to you morons as
    soon as people saw how great, fast, and good looking linux is with all that
    eye-candy that people would be drooling to buy linux machines. So here were
    the computers, sitting right there on the shelf next to the Windows machines
    that also weren't being explained. The difference is that people probably
    played around for a few minutes with the linux machines then said "Phewwww"
    and then turned around and bought a Windows machine.

    Nobody was there to explain anything about either system. Walmart customers
    took the "Pepsi challenge" and when they were done, they would rather pay
    more for a Windows machine.


    > This has already been explained, Teranews Fsckwit.

    A bunch of incoherent excuses is hardly an explanation.





    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  19. Re: Linux browser trends examined

    "Rick" stated in post 13u7ef3t0k24nab@news.supernews.com
    on 3/21/08 6:36 AM:

    >>> When people have a choice to buy preloaded linux then things will
    >>> improve. But choice is pretty hard to come by.

    >>
    >> Wal-mart just chose to remove one such choice because when offered a
    >> choice people didn't choose that choice.

    >
    > No, they took the macines off the shelves because of low margins.


    Can you show this?

    ....
    >>> No one really knows how many people use linux.

    >>
    >> We know this for sure: not many.

    >
    > That depends on how you define not many.


    LOL!

    --
    "Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
    all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs




  20. Re: Linux browser trends examined

    "Gregory Shearman" stated in post
    2695936.enn4qIVRms@netscape.net on 3/21/08 12:31 AM:

    > DFS wrote:
    >
    >> thad05@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:
    >>> A while back I posted some claims about growth of linux being
    >>> supported by published web stats. Someone asked for supporting
    >>> evidence, and I meant follow up with links but became buried
    >>> with work. I've finally had some spare time to dig into it,
    >>> but rather than post in that now probably cold thread, I'll
    >>> start a new one.
    >>>
    >>> I've collected up stats from three public sources, plugged them
    >>> into an OpenOffice spreadsheet and graphed the trends. They
    >>> very clearly show what I've been seeing for a while: even web
    >>> stats that show relatively low Linux share show consistent
    >>> growth over time. Also, as one would expect, sources with
    >>> very large samples collected from a broad demographic mix of
    >>> sites show a rather smooth growth line compared to a smaller
    >>> sample from one site. The lowest share I've found is the
    >>> 0.67 percent value from hitslink. It is not hard to find
    >>> stats in the 1 to 2 percent range. This is a considerable
    >>> improvement from a few years ago when 0.2 was the number being
    >>> thrown around. Just for fun, I've put the graphs on a web
    >>> page, including links to original source data:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.glaci.com/linuxstats.html
    >>>
    >>> Enjoy,
    >>>
    >>> Thad

    >>
    >>
    >> Thanks for the ammo, Mercenary: after 10+ years of trying to give itself
    >> away, less than 1 in 100 users chooses Linux.

    >
    > An exclusive club.


    Exclusive? How?

    > When people have a choice to buy preloaded linux then things will improve.
    > But choice is pretty hard to come by.


    They do... from Dell, HP, Walmart (though only online now!), etc.



    --
    The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
    --Albert Einstein


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast