How many "advocates" have me killfiled? - Linux

This is a discussion on How many "advocates" have me killfiled? - Linux ; Ezekiel wrote: > "Gregory Shearman" wrote in message > news:slrng4ia5k.8og.ZekeGregory@netscape.net... >> On 2008-06-05, Tim Smith wrote: >>> In article , >>> Gregory Shearman wrote: >>>> You cannot work out from web surfing stats the percentage of linux >>>> users. All ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 163

Thread: How many "advocates" have me killfiled?

  1. Re: How many "advocates" have me killfiled?

    Ezekiel wrote:
    > "Gregory Shearman" wrote in message
    > news:slrng4ia5k.8og.ZekeGregory@netscape.net...
    >> On 2008-06-05, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>> In article ,
    >>> Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >>>> You cannot work out from web surfing stats the percentage of linux
    >>>> users. All you can get is the stats about linux WEB SURFERS on specific
    >>>> sites.
    >>>>
    >>>> The internet is far far far more than just http.
    >>> Ah, another proponent of the "Linux users are weird people that don't do
    >>> things that normal people do" theory. They aren't interested in social
    >>> networking, so are underrepresented on Facebook. They don't need to
    >>> search the internet, so are underrepresent on Google. And so on.

    >> No facts again, just assertions. The discussion is useless.

    >
    > There's plenty of facts. It is a fact that nearly all credible statistics
    > show that linux has 1% or less desktop usage.


    Can you tell us how desktops are counted that do not access web pages?

    >
    > It is a fact that the BBC own web stats reports linux usage at only 0.8% of
    > site visitors.


    Can you tell us how desktops are counted that do not access web pages?

    >
    > It is a fact that Net Applications who consolidates data from 160+ million
    > visitors from thousands of sites from all over the world shows that linux
    > is at 0.6% market share.


    Can you tell us how desktops are counted that do not access web pages?

    >
    > As far as useless assertions go... it's fan-boi's like you who make
    > unsupported assertions that linux users don't surf the web, or use Google
    > or shop at Amazon.com or do anything else that a Windows user would do. Do
    > you have a shred of evidence to support your baseless assertions.. I didn't
    > think so.
    >
    > Everything you post is useless.


    That's humorous, coming form you.

  2. Re: How many "advocates" have me killfiled?

    Hadron wrote:
    > "Ezekiel" writes:
    >
    >> "Gregory Shearman" wrote in message
    >> news:slrng4ia5k.8og.ZekeGregory@netscape.net...
    >>> On 2008-06-05, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>>> In article ,
    >>>> Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >>>>> You cannot work out from web surfing stats the percentage of linux
    >>>>> users. All you can get is the stats about linux WEB SURFERS on specific
    >>>>> sites.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The internet is far far far more than just http.
    >>>> Ah, another proponent of the "Linux users are weird people that don't do
    >>>> things that normal people do" theory. They aren't interested in social
    >>>> networking, so are underrepresented on Facebook. They don't need to
    >>>> search the internet, so are underrepresent on Google. And so on.
    >>> No facts again, just assertions. The discussion is useless.

    >> There's plenty of facts. It is a fact that nearly all credible statistics
    >> show that linux has 1% or less desktop usage.
    >>
    >> It is a fact that the BBC own web stats reports linux usage at only 0.8% of
    >> site visitors.
    >>
    >> It is a fact that Net Applications who consolidates data from 160+ million
    >> visitors from thousands of sites from all over the world shows that linux
    >> is at 0.6% market share.
    >>
    >> As far as useless assertions go... it's fan-boi's like you who make
    >> unsupported assertions that linux users don't surf the web, or use Google
    >> or shop at Amazon.com or do anything else that a Windows user would do. Do
    >> you have a shred of evidence to support your baseless assertions.. I didn't
    >> think so.
    >>
    >> Everything you post is useless.

    >
    >
    > Gregory Shearman is hopefully nowhere near any development role. He is
    > as clueless as High Plains Hypocrite but a lot more dishonest. He is
    > also selfish to the extreme having publicly stated that Linux is as
    > perfect as it could possibly be and that he *HOPES* it does not get any
    > better in case it attracts the wrong kind of user. he is also on record
    > as saying that implementing a good, consistent UI is a waste of a
    > programmer's time as they have better things to be doing - the basis for
    > this incredibly selfish and naive view is that *he personally* can cope
    > with a fractured and non intuitive UI. I think he sees this as a sign of
    > his "leet"ness. He is possibly the most selfish "advocate" here and that
    > combined with his potty mouth and tendency to swear and insult people
    > makes him a rather unsavoury and useless weapon for those really
    > interested in furthering Linux on the desktop.
    >

    YOu may now show us some credible way to count Linux based desktops that
    do not access web pages.

  3. Re: How many "advocates" have me killfiled?

    On Jun 5, 3:58*pm, The Ghost In The Machine
    wrote:
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, cc
    >
    > *wrote
    > on Thu, 5 Jun 2008 04:43:47 -0700 (PDT)
    > <406f0bf8-aaf9-44f4-95b6-892834468...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Jun 4, 11:34*pm, The Ghost In The Machine
    > > wrote:
    > >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, cc
    > >>
    > >> *wrote
    > >> on Wed, 4 Jun 2008 20:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
    > >> <7d70b9af-7088-407a-bdda-367c9ea52...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:

    >
    > >> > On Jun 4, 6:49*pm, The Ghost In The Machine
    > >> > wrote:
    > >> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, cc
    > >> >>
    > >> >> *wrote
    > >> >> on Wed, 4 Jun 2008 14:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
    > >> >> :

    >
    > >> >> > On Jun 4, 5:06*pm, The Ghost In The Machine
    > >> >> > wrote:
    > >> >> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> *wrote
    > >> >> >> on Wed, 4 Jun 2008 15:57:16 -0400
    > >> >> >> :

    >
    > >> >> >> > * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    >
    > >> >> >> >> In article ,
    > >> >> >> >> *Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    > >> >> >> >>> Thus the only way we can even hope to use these stats to determine Linux
    > >> >> >> >>> usage is to simply assert, as a "truth" fabricated out of whole cloth,
    > >> >> >> >>> that Linux users use Facebook at approximtely the same rate as Windows
    > >> >> >> >>> users use Facebook.

    >
    > >> >> >> >>> While such an assertion may seem reasonable on the face of it, it is a
    > >> >> >> >>> wholly unsupported assertion, one not derived from any sort of actual
    > >> >> >> >>> measurement or analysis, it is in fact no more valid than rolling a
    > >> >> >> >>> couple of ten-sided dice and asserting "that many percent" use both Linux
    > >> >> >> >>> and Facebook.

    >
    > >> >> >> >> It's not just Facebook. *It's Google, and the BBC news site,and many
    > >> >> >> >> many others. *When you have just one site with low Linux representation,
    > >> >> >> >> there might be some unapparent reason that it attracts Linux users at a
    > >> >> >> >> rate lower than it attracts Windows or Mac users. *But when this is an
    > >> >> >> >> across the board phenomenon, it is hard to blame that on some hidden
    > >> >> >> >> bias.

    >
    > >> >> >> > Of course, you don't get one consistent number, you get a fairly wide
    > >> >> >> > range. *Only by making an assumption can you pin down the true "linux
    > >> >> >> > percentage" based on a collection of web stats. *One such assumption is
    > >> >> >> > "all OS users visit sites without regard to the operating system they
    > >> >> >> > use."

    >
    > >> >> >> > This, of course, is somewhat false, since many sites discouragevisits
    > >> >> >> > by non-Windows systems.

    >
    > >> >> >> Not only that, but there's the usual issues regarding
    > >> >> >> multiboots. *I'm setting up my laptop now, in fact, to boot
    > >> >> >> a number of distros (not all of them Linux-related), mostly
    > >> >> >> because I want to. *(Regrettably, ReactOS won't be one
    > >> >> >> of them; it's not ready to install on extended partitions
    > >> >> >> yet for some reason. *I can install ReactOS on a phantom
    > >> >> >> machine, and it gives me a rather basic desktop. *I don't
    > >> >> >> know about its networking yet.)

    >
    > >> >> >> So, if I were to natively install Gentoo (which I've
    > >> >> >> already done), Fedora, openSuSE, Sabayon, Debian, Ubuntu,
    > >> >> >> Debian/HURD or Gentoo/HURD, FreeDOS, XP (which came with
    > >> >> >> the machine), ReactOS, LinuxFromScratch, and FreeBSD,
    > >> >> >> either natively or in QEMU disk images on this box, how
    > >> >> >> much market share do I influence? ;-)

    >
    > >> >> > I'm assuming you do some web browsing from all of them, so why
    > >> >> > wouldn't you show up for all of them? You'd count more in Linux's
    > >> >> > favor, but you're using more than one Linux distro. So you'd influence
    > >> >> > exactly how much market share you'd think you would. As in, count one
    > >> >> > per distro. What's so hard about that situation?

    >
    > >> >> Is this an accurate reflection of the situation, then?
    > >> >> Not everyone browses from a Linux box, and not every Linux
    > >> >> box has a browser (especially if it's doing industrial
    > >> >> control type stuff).

    >
    > >> > We're talking desktops.

    >
    > >> OK...and?

    >
    > >> Not every desktop is as simple as an Inspiron 530 running
    > >> Windows Vista Home Basic, you know. ;-)

    >
    > > I wouldn't call it a desktop if it's doing industrial control, but
    > > that's just me.

    >
    > Point taken.
    >
    > > So why wouldn't this be an accurate reflection? There
    > > will be some Linux users that won't browse. There will be some Windows
    > > users that won't browse. Are you saying their choice of OS determines
    > > whether or not they browse the internet?

    >
    > If Microsoft's fantasies are fully fulfilled, yes; everyone
    > will be forced to use SilverLight if they want information
    > from the CommercialNet(tm) -- which is apparently what
    > the Internet/Web is evolving into.
    >
    > Since Silverlight doesn't run on Linux (though we'll see
    > how much headway Moonlight makes on non-Novell distros),
    > one has to ask a few interesting questions.
    >


    If if's and but's were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry christmas.
    It's currently not that way, and I doubt it will ever be.

  4. Re: How many "advocates" have me killfiled?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, cc

    wrote
    on Thu, 5 Jun 2008 18:58:05 -0700 (PDT)
    <4e457180-b64a-4cac-b9b9-7fb0d4f61c28@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>:
    > On Jun 5, 3:58*pm, The Ghost In The Machine
    > wrote:
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, cc
    >>
    >> *wrote
    >> on Thu, 5 Jun 2008 04:43:47 -0700 (PDT)
    >> <406f0bf8-aaf9-44f4-95b6-892834468...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:


    [snippage for brevity]

    >> > So why wouldn't this be an accurate reflection? There
    >> > will be some Linux users that won't browse. There will be some Windows
    >> > users that won't browse. Are you saying their choice of OS determines
    >> > whether or not they browse the internet?

    >>
    >> If Microsoft's fantasies are fully fulfilled, yes; everyone
    >> will be forced to use SilverLight if they want information
    >> from the CommercialNet(tm) -- which is apparently what
    >> the Internet/Web is evolving into.
    >>
    >> Since Silverlight doesn't run on Linux (though we'll see
    >> how much headway Moonlight makes on non-Novell distros),
    >> one has to ask a few interesting questions.
    >>

    >
    > If if's and but's were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry christmas.
    > It's currently not that way, and I doubt it will ever be.


    Why not? Silverlight looks extremely promising.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    If your CPU can't stand the heat, get another fan.
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  5. Re: How many "advocates" have me killfiled?

    Hadron wrote:
    > Rick writes:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>> "Ezekiel" writes:
    >>>
    >>>> "Gregory Shearman" wrote in message
    >>>> news:slrng4ia5k.8og.ZekeGregory@netscape.net...
    >>>>> On 2008-06-05, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>>>>> In article ,
    >>>>>> Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >>>>>>> You cannot work out from web surfing stats the percentage of linux
    >>>>>>> users. All you can get is the stats about linux WEB SURFERS on specific
    >>>>>>> sites.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> The internet is far far far more than just http.
    >>>>>> Ah, another proponent of the "Linux users are weird people that don't do
    >>>>>> things that normal people do" theory. They aren't interested in social
    >>>>>> networking, so are underrepresented on Facebook. They don't need to
    >>>>>> search the internet, so are underrepresent on Google. And so on.
    >>>>> No facts again, just assertions. The discussion is useless.
    >>>> There's plenty of facts. It is a fact that nearly all credible
    >>>> statistics show that linux has 1% or less desktop usage.
    >>>>
    >>>> It is a fact that the BBC own web stats reports linux usage at only
    >>>> 0.8% of site visitors.
    >>>>
    >>>> It is a fact that Net Applications who consolidates data from 160+
    >>>> million visitors from thousands of sites from all over the world
    >>>> shows that linux is at 0.6% market share.
    >>>>
    >>>> As far as useless assertions go... it's fan-boi's like you who make
    >>>> unsupported assertions that linux users don't surf the web, or use
    >>>> Google or shop at Amazon.com or do anything else that a Windows
    >>>> user would do. Do you have a shred of evidence to support your
    >>>> baseless assertions.. I didn't think so.
    >>>>
    >>>> Everything you post is useless.
    >>>
    >>> Gregory Shearman is hopefully nowhere near any development role. He is
    >>> as clueless as High Plains Hypocrite but a lot more dishonest. He is
    >>> also selfish to the extreme having publicly stated that Linux is as
    >>> perfect as it could possibly be and that he *HOPES* it does not get any
    >>> better in case it attracts the wrong kind of user. he is also on record
    >>> as saying that implementing a good, consistent UI is a waste of a
    >>> programmer's time as they have better things to be doing - the basis for
    >>> this incredibly selfish and naive view is that *he personally* can cope
    >>> with a fractured and non intuitive UI. I think he sees this as a sign of
    >>> his "leet"ness. He is possibly the most selfish "advocate" here and that
    >>> combined with his potty mouth and tendency to swear and insult people
    >>> makes him a rather unsavoury and useless weapon for those really
    >>> interested in furthering Linux on the desktop.
    >>>

    >> YOu may now show us some credible way to count Linux based desktops
    >> that do not access web pages.

    >
    > Huh? What are you talking about. Would you know of a way to do that with
    > Windows ones?
    >
    > You do understand the basics of a sample don't you? No. Probably not.


    With windwows you have sales figures to compare with web usage figures.
    With Linux usage, you do not.

  6. Re: How many "advocates" have me killfiled?

    Hadron wrote:
    > Rick writes:
    >
    >> Ezekiel wrote:
    >>> "Gregory Shearman" wrote in message
    >>> news:slrng4ia5k.8og.ZekeGregory@netscape.net...
    >>>> On 2008-06-05, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>>>> In article ,
    >>>>> Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >>>>>> You cannot work out from web surfing stats the percentage of linux
    >>>>>> users. All you can get is the stats about linux WEB SURFERS on specific
    >>>>>> sites.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The internet is far far far more than just http.
    >>>>> Ah, another proponent of the "Linux users are weird people that don't do
    >>>>> things that normal people do" theory. They aren't interested in social
    >>>>> networking, so are underrepresented on Facebook. They don't need to
    >>>>> search the internet, so are underrepresent on Google. And so on.
    >>>> No facts again, just assertions. The discussion is useless.
    >>> There's plenty of facts. It is a fact that nearly all credible
    >>> statistics show that linux has 1% or less desktop usage.

    >> Can you tell us how desktops are counted that do not access web pages?
    >>
    >>> It is a fact that the BBC own web stats reports linux usage at only
    >>> 0.8% of site visitors.

    >> Can you tell us how desktops are counted that do not access web pages?

    >
    > Err, this is a sample of people who do access web pages. Or do you think
    > that the "net safe OS" Linux is more often than not NOT used to access
    > the web. Do try and get a clue Rick. These stats measure all OSen which
    > access these sites. There is no reason to think that a higher % of Linux
    > machines are kept offline. If anything a higher % of Windows machines
    > are kept offline as they are inherently less secure.


    Maybe everyone needs to decide if they are going to talk about wbe
    usages, installed base or retail market share, and then find some
    credible way to count it.

    >
    >>> It is a fact that Net Applications who consolidates data from 160+
    >>> million visitors from thousands of sites from all over the world
    >>> shows that linux is at 0.6% market share.

    >> Can you tell us how desktops are counted that do not access web pages?
    >>

    >
    > Oh dear. It's like the UI thing all over again. Please stop. You make
    > yourself look like a jack ass.


    You are the one that is too stupid to realize that having the freedom to
    choose the desktop environment that best suits you is a benefit.

    >
    >>> As far as useless assertions go... it's fan-boi's like you who make
    >>> unsupported assertions that linux users don't surf the web, or use
    >>> Google or shop at Amazon.com or do anything else that a Windows user
    >>> would do. Do you have a shred of evidence to support your baseless
    >>> assertions.. I didn't think so.
    >>>
    >>> Everything you post is useless.

    >> That's humorous, coming form you.

    >
    > What in his last paragraph strikes you as wrong? Or do you really think
    > less % of Linux *DESKTOP* users browse the web and visit the w3schools
    > or the BBC?
    >
    >
    > You're clutching at straws and sinking fast. Give it up. Even common
    > sense and real life experience shows us that Linux is next to nowhere to
    > be seen.


    I am not clutching or sinking, but I am tired of you people dissing
    Linux based on numbers that are not reliable.

    >
    > And lest not forget the millions of Linux based EEE machines shipped -
    > they are used pretty much ONLY to browse the web and do email. Or do
    > they not count?
    >
    > Rick, Rick, Rick. Get out now while the going is good.
    >


    Qirk, Quack, Duck. Buy a brain.

  7. Re: How many "advocates" have me killfiled?

    On Jun 5, 11:02*pm, The Ghost In The Machine
    wrote:
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, cc
    >
    > *wrote
    > on Thu, 5 Jun 2008 18:58:05 -0700 (PDT)
    > <4e457180-b64a-4cac-b9b9-7fb0d4f61...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>:
    >
    > > On Jun 5, 3:58*pm, The Ghost In The Machine
    > > wrote:
    > >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, cc
    > >>
    > >> *wrote
    > >> on Thu, 5 Jun 2008 04:43:47 -0700 (PDT)
    > >> <406f0bf8-aaf9-44f4-95b6-892834468...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:

    >
    > [snippage for brevity]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >> > So why wouldn't this be an accurate reflection? There
    > >> > will be some Linux users that won't browse. There will be some Windows
    > >> > users that won't browse. Are you saying their choice of OS determines
    > >> > whether or not they browse the internet?

    >
    > >> If Microsoft's fantasies are fully fulfilled, yes; everyone
    > >> will be forced to use SilverLight if they want information
    > >> from the CommercialNet(tm) -- which is apparently what
    > >> the Internet/Web is evolving into.

    >
    > >> Since Silverlight doesn't run on Linux (though we'll see
    > >> how much headway Moonlight makes on non-Novell distros),
    > >> one has to ask a few interesting questions.

    >
    > > If if's and but's were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry christmas.
    > > It's currently not that way, and I doubt it will ever be.

    >
    > Why not? *Silverlight looks extremely promising.
    >


    Right, and anything promising eventually runs on Linux in some form.
    You can open Word documents on Linux, but I'm sure once upon a time
    you would have said the same thing about Word. Right now the web isn't
    closed off to one operating system, and I don't think Silverlight will
    change that.

  8. Re: How many "advocates" have me killfiled?

    On 2008-06-05, Tim Smith wrote:
    > In article ,
    > Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >> You cannot work out from web surfing stats the percentage of linux
    >> users. All you can get is the stats about linux WEB SURFERS on specific
    >> sites.
    >>
    >> The internet is far far far more than just http.

    >
    > Ah, another proponent of the "Linux users are weird people that don't do
    > things that normal people do" theory. They aren't interested in social
    > networking, so are underrepresented on Facebook. They don't need to
    > search the internet, so are underrepresent on Google. And so on.


    No facts again, just assertions. The discussion is useless.

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  9. Re: How many "advocates" have me killfiled?


    "Gregory Shearman" wrote in message
    news:slrng4ia5k.8og.ZekeGregory@netscape.net...
    > On 2008-06-05, Tim Smith wrote:
    >> In article ,
    >> Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >>> You cannot work out from web surfing stats the percentage of linux
    >>> users. All you can get is the stats about linux WEB SURFERS on specific
    >>> sites.
    >>>
    >>> The internet is far far far more than just http.

    >>
    >> Ah, another proponent of the "Linux users are weird people that don't do
    >> things that normal people do" theory. They aren't interested in social
    >> networking, so are underrepresented on Facebook. They don't need to
    >> search the internet, so are underrepresent on Google. And so on.

    >
    > No facts again, just assertions. The discussion is useless.


    There's plenty of facts. It is a fact that nearly all credible statistics
    show that linux has 1% or less desktop usage.

    It is a fact that the BBC own web stats reports linux usage at only 0.8% of
    site visitors.

    It is a fact that Net Applications who consolidates data from 160+ million
    visitors from thousands of sites from all over the world shows that linux
    is at 0.6% market share.

    As far as useless assertions go... it's fan-boi's like you who make
    unsupported assertions that linux users don't surf the web, or use Google
    or shop at Amazon.com or do anything else that a Windows user would do. Do
    you have a shred of evidence to support your baseless assertions.. I didn't
    think so.

    Everything you post is useless.


    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  10. Re: How many "advocates" have me killfiled?

    "Ezekiel" writes:

    > "Gregory Shearman" wrote in message
    > news:slrng4ia5k.8og.ZekeGregory@netscape.net...
    >> On 2008-06-05, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>> In article ,
    >>> Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >>>> You cannot work out from web surfing stats the percentage of linux
    >>>> users. All you can get is the stats about linux WEB SURFERS on specific
    >>>> sites.
    >>>>
    >>>> The internet is far far far more than just http.
    >>>
    >>> Ah, another proponent of the "Linux users are weird people that don't do
    >>> things that normal people do" theory. They aren't interested in social
    >>> networking, so are underrepresented on Facebook. They don't need to
    >>> search the internet, so are underrepresent on Google. And so on.

    >>
    >> No facts again, just assertions. The discussion is useless.

    >
    > There's plenty of facts. It is a fact that nearly all credible statistics
    > show that linux has 1% or less desktop usage.
    >
    > It is a fact that the BBC own web stats reports linux usage at only 0.8% of
    > site visitors.
    >
    > It is a fact that Net Applications who consolidates data from 160+ million
    > visitors from thousands of sites from all over the world shows that linux
    > is at 0.6% market share.
    >
    > As far as useless assertions go... it's fan-boi's like you who make
    > unsupported assertions that linux users don't surf the web, or use Google
    > or shop at Amazon.com or do anything else that a Windows user would do. Do
    > you have a shred of evidence to support your baseless assertions.. I didn't
    > think so.
    >
    > Everything you post is useless.



    Gregory Shearman is hopefully nowhere near any development role. He is
    as clueless as High Plains Hypocrite but a lot more dishonest. He is
    also selfish to the extreme having publicly stated that Linux is as
    perfect as it could possibly be and that he *HOPES* it does not get any
    better in case it attracts the wrong kind of user. he is also on record
    as saying that implementing a good, consistent UI is a waste of a
    programmer's time as they have better things to be doing - the basis for
    this incredibly selfish and naive view is that *he personally* can cope
    with a fractured and non intuitive UI. I think he sees this as a sign of
    his "leet"ness. He is possibly the most selfish "advocate" here and that
    combined with his potty mouth and tendency to swear and insult people
    makes him a rather unsavoury and useless weapon for those really
    interested in furthering Linux on the desktop.


  11. Re: How many "advocates" have me killfiled?

    * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > In article ,
    > JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >>
    >> Linux users like to turn off all scripting.
    >> They might even like to turn off all the images.
    >> Mebbe they want to download stuff rather than having it only stream.

    >
    > Are you sure you haven't confused Linux users with Chuck Norris?


    Chuck Norris doesn't need a CPU -- he does all calculations himself.

    --
    We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and
    underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten. Don't let yourself
    be lulled into inaction.
    -- Bill Gates

  12. Re: How many "advocates" have me killfiled?

    Rick writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >> "Ezekiel" writes:
    >>
    >>> "Gregory Shearman" wrote in message
    >>> news:slrng4ia5k.8og.ZekeGregory@netscape.net...
    >>>> On 2008-06-05, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>>>> In article ,
    >>>>> Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >>>>>> You cannot work out from web surfing stats the percentage of linux
    >>>>>> users. All you can get is the stats about linux WEB SURFERS on specific
    >>>>>> sites.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The internet is far far far more than just http.
    >>>>> Ah, another proponent of the "Linux users are weird people that don't do
    >>>>> things that normal people do" theory. They aren't interested in social
    >>>>> networking, so are underrepresented on Facebook. They don't need to
    >>>>> search the internet, so are underrepresent on Google. And so on.
    >>>> No facts again, just assertions. The discussion is useless.
    >>> There's plenty of facts. It is a fact that nearly all credible
    >>> statistics show that linux has 1% or less desktop usage.
    >>>
    >>> It is a fact that the BBC own web stats reports linux usage at only
    >>> 0.8% of site visitors.
    >>>
    >>> It is a fact that Net Applications who consolidates data from 160+
    >>> million visitors from thousands of sites from all over the world
    >>> shows that linux is at 0.6% market share.
    >>>
    >>> As far as useless assertions go... it's fan-boi's like you who make
    >>> unsupported assertions that linux users don't surf the web, or use
    >>> Google or shop at Amazon.com or do anything else that a Windows
    >>> user would do. Do you have a shred of evidence to support your
    >>> baseless assertions.. I didn't think so.
    >>>
    >>> Everything you post is useless.

    >>
    >>
    >> Gregory Shearman is hopefully nowhere near any development role. He is
    >> as clueless as High Plains Hypocrite but a lot more dishonest. He is
    >> also selfish to the extreme having publicly stated that Linux is as
    >> perfect as it could possibly be and that he *HOPES* it does not get any
    >> better in case it attracts the wrong kind of user. he is also on record
    >> as saying that implementing a good, consistent UI is a waste of a
    >> programmer's time as they have better things to be doing - the basis for
    >> this incredibly selfish and naive view is that *he personally* can cope
    >> with a fractured and non intuitive UI. I think he sees this as a sign of
    >> his "leet"ness. He is possibly the most selfish "advocate" here and that
    >> combined with his potty mouth and tendency to swear and insult people
    >> makes him a rather unsavoury and useless weapon for those really
    >> interested in furthering Linux on the desktop.
    >>

    > YOu may now show us some credible way to count Linux based desktops
    > that do not access web pages.


    Huh? What are you talking about. Would you know of a way to do that with
    Windows ones?

    You do understand the basics of a sample don't you? No. Probably not.

  13. Re: How many "advocates" have me killfiled?

    Rick writes:

    > Ezekiel wrote:
    >> "Gregory Shearman" wrote in message
    >> news:slrng4ia5k.8og.ZekeGregory@netscape.net...
    >>> On 2008-06-05, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>>> In article ,
    >>>> Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >>>>> You cannot work out from web surfing stats the percentage of linux
    >>>>> users. All you can get is the stats about linux WEB SURFERS on specific
    >>>>> sites.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The internet is far far far more than just http.
    >>>> Ah, another proponent of the "Linux users are weird people that don't do
    >>>> things that normal people do" theory. They aren't interested in social
    >>>> networking, so are underrepresented on Facebook. They don't need to
    >>>> search the internet, so are underrepresent on Google. And so on.
    >>> No facts again, just assertions. The discussion is useless.

    >>
    >> There's plenty of facts. It is a fact that nearly all credible
    >> statistics show that linux has 1% or less desktop usage.

    >
    > Can you tell us how desktops are counted that do not access web pages?
    >
    >>
    >> It is a fact that the BBC own web stats reports linux usage at only
    >> 0.8% of site visitors.

    >
    > Can you tell us how desktops are counted that do not access web pages?


    Err, this is a sample of people who do access web pages. Or do you think
    that the "net safe OS" Linux is more often than not NOT used to access
    the web. Do try and get a clue Rick. These stats measure all OSen which
    access these sites. There is no reason to think that a higher % of Linux
    machines are kept offline. If anything a higher % of Windows machines
    are kept offline as they are inherently less secure.

    >
    >>
    >> It is a fact that Net Applications who consolidates data from 160+
    >> million visitors from thousands of sites from all over the world
    >> shows that linux is at 0.6% market share.

    >
    > Can you tell us how desktops are counted that do not access web pages?
    >


    Oh dear. It's like the UI thing all over again. Please stop. You make
    yourself look like a jack ass.

    >>
    >> As far as useless assertions go... it's fan-boi's like you who make
    >> unsupported assertions that linux users don't surf the web, or use
    >> Google or shop at Amazon.com or do anything else that a Windows user
    >> would do. Do you have a shred of evidence to support your baseless
    >> assertions.. I didn't think so.
    >>
    >> Everything you post is useless.

    >
    > That's humorous, coming form you.


    What in his last paragraph strikes you as wrong? Or do you really think
    less % of Linux *DESKTOP* users browse the web and visit the w3schools
    or the BBC?


    You're clutching at straws and sinking fast. Give it up. Even common
    sense and real life experience shows us that Linux is next to nowhere to
    be seen.

    And lest not forget the millions of Linux based EEE machines shipped -
    they are used pretty much ONLY to browse the web and do email. Or do
    they not count?

    Rick, Rick, Rick. Get out now while the going is good.

    --
    ltd: Fine, go through life just pointing and grunting at
    what you mean. Works for Mac users.

  14. Re: How many "advocates" have me killfiled?

    On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:24:59 +0200, Hadron wrote:


    > What in his last paragraph strikes you as wrong? Or do you really think
    > less % of Linux *DESKTOP* users browse the web and visit the w3schools
    > or the BBC?
    >
    >
    > You're clutching at straws and sinking fast. Give it up. Even common
    > sense and real life experience shows us that Linux is next to nowhere to
    > be seen.
    >
    > And lest not forget the millions of Linux based EEE machines shipped -
    > they are used pretty much ONLY to browse the web and do email. Or do
    > they not count?
    >
    > Rick, Rick, Rick. Get out now while the going is good.



    Rick digs himself a hole and then continues to keep digging long after he
    has already been proven wrong.
    Remember we are dealing with a person, Rick, who thinks Hans Reiser might
    be innocent.

    Some Linux *advocates* are delusional, Rick is one of them.

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

  15. Re: How many "advocates" have me killfiled?

    "Moshe Goldfarb." writes:

    > On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:24:59 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >
    >
    >> What in his last paragraph strikes you as wrong? Or do you really think
    >> less % of Linux *DESKTOP* users browse the web and visit the w3schools
    >> or the BBC?
    >>
    >>
    >> You're clutching at straws and sinking fast. Give it up. Even common
    >> sense and real life experience shows us that Linux is next to nowhere to
    >> be seen.
    >>
    >> And lest not forget the millions of Linux based EEE machines shipped -
    >> they are used pretty much ONLY to browse the web and do email. Or do
    >> they not count?
    >>
    >> Rick, Rick, Rick. Get out now while the going is good.

    >
    >
    > Rick digs himself a hole and then continues to keep digging long after he
    > has already been proven wrong.
    > Remember we are dealing with a person, Rick, who thinks Hans Reiser might
    > be innocent.
    >
    > Some Linux *advocates* are delusional, Rick is one of them.


    I am gobsmacked that the "advocates" are suggesting that a smaller % of
    Linux *desktops* are online than the equivalent % of Windows ones.

    --
    "Its obvious Micoshaft sponsored frauds and net stalkers are now attacking individuals directly in organised gangs in linux advocacy newsgroups as predicted since it is known micoshaft is failing in the market place."
    7, COLA Linux "advocate" and nutjob.

  16. Re: How many "advocates" have me killfiled?

    On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:35:24 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > "Moshe Goldfarb." writes:
    >
    >> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:24:59 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> What in his last paragraph strikes you as wrong? Or do you really think
    >>> less % of Linux *DESKTOP* users browse the web and visit the w3schools
    >>> or the BBC?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> You're clutching at straws and sinking fast. Give it up. Even common
    >>> sense and real life experience shows us that Linux is next to nowhere to
    >>> be seen.
    >>>
    >>> And lest not forget the millions of Linux based EEE machines shipped -
    >>> they are used pretty much ONLY to browse the web and do email. Or do
    >>> they not count?
    >>>
    >>> Rick, Rick, Rick. Get out now while the going is good.

    >>
    >>
    >> Rick digs himself a hole and then continues to keep digging long after he
    >> has already been proven wrong.
    >> Remember we are dealing with a person, Rick, who thinks Hans Reiser might
    >> be innocent.
    >>
    >> Some Linux *advocates* are delusional, Rick is one of them.

    >
    > I am gobsmacked that the "advocates" are suggesting that a smaller % of
    > Linux *desktops* are online than the equivalent % of Windows ones.


    I'm not.
    They seem to be on some kind of mission to spread lies.
    Notice the huge increase in off topic anti Microsoft articles lately?

    The Linux loons are scared ****less.
    Of what I don't know, but they are worried.
    It's obvious.

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

  17. Re: How many "advocates" have me killfiled?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hadron

    wrote
    on Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:35:24 +0200
    :
    > "Moshe Goldfarb." writes:
    >
    >> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:24:59 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> What in his last paragraph strikes you as wrong? Or do you really think
    >>> less % of Linux *DESKTOP* users browse the web and visit the w3schools
    >>> or the BBC?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> You're clutching at straws and sinking fast. Give it up. Even common
    >>> sense and real life experience shows us that Linux is next to nowhere to
    >>> be seen.
    >>>
    >>> And lest not forget the millions of Linux based EEE machines shipped -
    >>> they are used pretty much ONLY to browse the web and do email. Or do
    >>> they not count?
    >>>
    >>> Rick, Rick, Rick. Get out now while the going is good.

    >>
    >>
    >> Rick digs himself a hole and then continues to keep digging long after he
    >> has already been proven wrong.
    >> Remember we are dealing with a person, Rick, who thinks Hans Reiser might
    >> be innocent.
    >>
    >> Some Linux *advocates* are delusional, Rick is one of them.

    >
    > I am gobsmacked that the "advocates" are suggesting that a smaller % of
    > Linux *desktops* are online than the equivalent % of Windows ones.
    >


    Why should you be? Those are the facts. Granted, the
    exact number is in some dispute, but it is clear that the
    number of Linux boxes is a fair bit less than the number
    of Windows ones, even were one to get *very* optimistic
    and suggest that Linux has 30%.

    A more likely number is 3%. I'd think it's 6% or
    so myself, but I'd frankly have to dig, and the only
    number I do have that's anywhere near reliable is 0.6%
    from markethits.com. Take your pick, but Linux is not
    in the driver's seat here...although Microsoft looks like
    it's slumped over the steering wheel at this point, furiously
    calculating revenue figures even as the bus careens.

    Now whether mobiles should be included in this count or not
    is another question (laptops and notebooks are mobile after all,
    if a fair bit too heavy to clip on one's belt or put in one's
    pants or shirt pocket).

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    If your CPU can't stand the heat, get another fan.
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  18. Re: How many "advocates" have me killfiled?

    Rick writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >> Rick writes:
    >>
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>> "Ezekiel" writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "Gregory Shearman" wrote in message
    >>>>> news:slrng4ia5k.8og.ZekeGregory@netscape.net...
    >>>>>> On 2008-06-05, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>>>>>> In article ,
    >>>>>>> Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >>>>>>>> You cannot work out from web surfing stats the percentage of linux
    >>>>>>>> users. All you can get is the stats about linux WEB SURFERS on specific
    >>>>>>>> sites.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> The internet is far far far more than just http.
    >>>>>>> Ah, another proponent of the "Linux users are weird people that don't do
    >>>>>>> things that normal people do" theory. They aren't interested in social
    >>>>>>> networking, so are underrepresented on Facebook. They don't need to
    >>>>>>> search the internet, so are underrepresent on Google. And so on.
    >>>>>> No facts again, just assertions. The discussion is useless.
    >>>>> There's plenty of facts. It is a fact that nearly all credible
    >>>>> statistics show that linux has 1% or less desktop usage.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It is a fact that the BBC own web stats reports linux usage at only
    >>>>> 0.8% of site visitors.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It is a fact that Net Applications who consolidates data from 160+
    >>>>> million visitors from thousands of sites from all over the world
    >>>>> shows that linux is at 0.6% market share.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> As far as useless assertions go... it's fan-boi's like you who make
    >>>>> unsupported assertions that linux users don't surf the web, or use
    >>>>> Google or shop at Amazon.com or do anything else that a Windows
    >>>>> user would do. Do you have a shred of evidence to support your
    >>>>> baseless assertions.. I didn't think so.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Everything you post is useless.
    >>>>
    >>>> Gregory Shearman is hopefully nowhere near any development role. He is
    >>>> as clueless as High Plains Hypocrite but a lot more dishonest. He is
    >>>> also selfish to the extreme having publicly stated that Linux is as
    >>>> perfect as it could possibly be and that he *HOPES* it does not get any
    >>>> better in case it attracts the wrong kind of user. he is also on record
    >>>> as saying that implementing a good, consistent UI is a waste of a
    >>>> programmer's time as they have better things to be doing - the basis for
    >>>> this incredibly selfish and naive view is that *he personally* can cope
    >>>> with a fractured and non intuitive UI. I think he sees this as a sign of
    >>>> his "leet"ness. He is possibly the most selfish "advocate" here and that
    >>>> combined with his potty mouth and tendency to swear and insult people
    >>>> makes him a rather unsavoury and useless weapon for those really
    >>>> interested in furthering Linux on the desktop.
    >>>>
    >>> YOu may now show us some credible way to count Linux based desktops
    >>> that do not access web pages.

    >>
    >> Huh? What are you talking about. Would you know of a way to do that with
    >> Windows ones?
    >>
    >> You do understand the basics of a sample don't you? No. Probably not.

    >
    > With windwows you have sales figures to compare with web usage
    > figures. With Linux usage, you do not.


    Err, Earth calling Rick. Earth calling Rick. We are talking about web
    sample comparisons. NOT SALES FIGURES. And besides, more and more
    Windows versions are pirated too as you well know.

    Do *try* and understand what is being discussed.

    --
    "Yes, I am a nymshifting troll. I used to be called Rafael, but since the operation I prefer to be called Robin T Cox."
    High Plains Shifter, COLA.

  19. Re: How many "advocates" have me killfiled?

    The Ghost In The Machine writes:

    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hadron
    >
    > wrote
    > on Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:35:24 +0200
    > :
    >> "Moshe Goldfarb." writes:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:24:59 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> What in his last paragraph strikes you as wrong? Or do you really think
    >>>> less % of Linux *DESKTOP* users browse the web and visit the w3schools
    >>>> or the BBC?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> You're clutching at straws and sinking fast. Give it up. Even common
    >>>> sense and real life experience shows us that Linux is next to nowhere to
    >>>> be seen.
    >>>>
    >>>> And lest not forget the millions of Linux based EEE machines shipped -
    >>>> they are used pretty much ONLY to browse the web and do email. Or do
    >>>> they not count?
    >>>>
    >>>> Rick, Rick, Rick. Get out now while the going is good.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Rick digs himself a hole and then continues to keep digging long after he
    >>> has already been proven wrong.
    >>> Remember we are dealing with a person, Rick, who thinks Hans Reiser might
    >>> be innocent.
    >>>
    >>> Some Linux *advocates* are delusional, Rick is one of them.

    >>
    >> I am gobsmacked that the "advocates" are suggesting that a smaller % of
    >> Linux *desktops* are online than the equivalent % of Windows ones.
    >>

    >
    > Why should you be? Those are the facts. Granted, the


    Those are NOT the facts. % of Linux desktops online. Not the NUMBER
    online.

    > exact number is in some dispute, but it is clear that the
    > number of Linux boxes is a fair bit less than the number
    > of Windows ones, even were one to get *very* optimistic
    > and suggest that Linux has 30%.


    Sometimes I wonder why you post such nonsense. You know as well as I do
    that its around 1% at most.

    >
    > A more likely number is 3%. I'd think it's 6% or
    > so myself, but I'd frankly have to dig, and the only
    > number I do have that's anywhere near reliable is 0.6%
    > from markethits.com. Take your pick, but Linux is not
    > in the driver's seat here...although Microsoft looks like
    > it's slumped over the steering wheel at this point, furiously
    > calculating revenue figures even as the bus careens.


    Nonsense. The web stats are as valid for Linux as they are for Windows.

    --
    "Yes, I am a nymshifting troll. I used to be called Rafael, but since the operation I prefer to be called Robin T Cox."
    High Plains Shifter, COLA.

  20. Re: How many "advocates" have me killfiled?

    Rick writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >> Rick writes:
    >>
    >>> Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>> "Gregory Shearman" wrote in message
    >>>> news:slrng4ia5k.8og.ZekeGregory@netscape.net...
    >>>>> On 2008-06-05, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>>>>> In article ,
    >>>>>> Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >>>>>>> You cannot work out from web surfing stats the percentage of linux
    >>>>>>> users. All you can get is the stats about linux WEB SURFERS on specific
    >>>>>>> sites.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> The internet is far far far more than just http.
    >>>>>> Ah, another proponent of the "Linux users are weird people that don't do
    >>>>>> things that normal people do" theory. They aren't interested in social
    >>>>>> networking, so are underrepresented on Facebook. They don't need to
    >>>>>> search the internet, so are underrepresent on Google. And so on.
    >>>>> No facts again, just assertions. The discussion is useless.
    >>>> There's plenty of facts. It is a fact that nearly all credible
    >>>> statistics show that linux has 1% or less desktop usage.
    >>> Can you tell us how desktops are counted that do not access web pages?
    >>>
    >>>> It is a fact that the BBC own web stats reports linux usage at only
    >>>> 0.8% of site visitors.
    >>> Can you tell us how desktops are counted that do not access web pages?

    >>
    >> Err, this is a sample of people who do access web pages. Or do you think
    >> that the "net safe OS" Linux is more often than not NOT used to access
    >> the web. Do try and get a clue Rick. These stats measure all OSen which
    >> access these sites. There is no reason to think that a higher % of Linux
    >> machines are kept offline. If anything a higher % of Windows machines
    >> are kept offline as they are inherently less secure.

    >
    > Maybe everyone needs to decide if they are going to talk about wbe
    > usages, installed base or retail market share, and then find some
    > credible way to count it.


    Huh? What ARE you talking about? There are ways to count it. Where do
    you think these *SAMPLES* come from????????????????


    >
    >>
    >>>> It is a fact that Net Applications who consolidates data from 160+
    >>>> million visitors from thousands of sites from all over the world
    >>>> shows that linux is at 0.6% market share.
    >>> Can you tell us how desktops are counted that do not access web pages?
    >>>

    >>
    >> Oh dear. It's like the UI thing all over again. Please stop. You make
    >> yourself look like a jack ass.

    >
    > You are the one that is too stupid to realize that having the freedom
    > to choose the desktop environment that best suits you is a benefit.


    I have never denied that having different DEs can be beneficial. e.g I
    think KDE is a buggy over engineered mess so I use Gnome. You still seem
    not to understand the issues discussed with regard to a fractured UI. I
    am truly astonished and can only assume you are stupid or trolling at
    this stage.

    >
    >>
    >>>> As far as useless assertions go... it's fan-boi's like you who make
    >>>> unsupported assertions that linux users don't surf the web, or use
    >>>> Google or shop at Amazon.com or do anything else that a Windows user
    >>>> would do. Do you have a shred of evidence to support your baseless
    >>>> assertions.. I didn't think so.
    >>>>
    >>>> Everything you post is useless.
    >>> That's humorous, coming form you.

    >>
    >> What in his last paragraph strikes you as wrong? Or do you really think
    >> less % of Linux *DESKTOP* users browse the web and visit the w3schools
    >> or the BBC?
    >>
    >>
    >> You're clutching at straws and sinking fast. Give it up. Even common
    >> sense and real life experience shows us that Linux is next to nowhere to
    >> be seen.

    >
    > I am not clutching or sinking, but I am tired of you people dissing
    > Linux based on numbers that are not reliable.


    And how are these samples any less reliable than any others used the
    world over for measuring usage, audience etc?

    >
    >>
    >> And lest not forget the millions of Linux based EEE machines shipped -
    >> they are used pretty much ONLY to browse the web and do email. Or do
    >> they not count?
    >>
    >> Rick, Rick, Rick. Get out now while the going is good.
    >>

    >
    > Qirk, Quack, Duck. Buy a brain.


    Which one would you like? I'll post it over.


    --
    "Yes, I am a nymshifting troll. I used to be called Rafael, but since the operation I prefer to be called Robin T Cox."
    High Plains Shifter, COLA.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast