How many "advocates" have me killfiled? - Linux

This is a discussion on How many "advocates" have me killfiled? - Linux ; In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hadron wrote on Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:03:46 +0200 : > The Ghost In The Machine writes: > >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hadron >> >> wrote >> on Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:35:24 +0200 >> : >>> "Moshe Goldfarb." ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 163

Thread: How many "advocates" have me killfiled?

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

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hadron

    wrote
    on Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:03:46 +0200
    :
    > 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.


    Both the number and the ratio (or percentage) are in some dispute.

    >
    >> 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.


    0.6% absent further information.

    >
    >>
    >> 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.
    >


    Actually, they're not; Linux is *overrepresented*.
    Consider that the website www.w3schools.com is
    inherently Linux-biased (specs for IE are available
    at msdn.microsoft.com and therefore there's no point),
    for example.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    New Technology? Not There. No Thanks.
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  2. 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 19:03:46 +0200
    > :
    >> 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.

    >
    > Both the number and the ratio (or percentage) are in some dispute.


    No they are not. The ratio which is all we can SAMPLE is generally there
    and about 1%.

    >
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >
    > 0.6% absent further information.


    What further information? What makes Linux so different to everything
    else when these samples are taken.

    >
    >>
    >>>
    >>> 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.
    >>

    >
    > Actually, they're not; Linux is *overrepresented*.
    > Consider that the website www.w3schools.com is
    > inherently Linux-biased (specs for IE are available
    > at msdn.microsoft.com and therefore there's no point),
    > for example.


    I have said this for ages. But am willing to concede it is not for the
    sake of 0.3% or whatever it is.

    But the point is whichever way "advocates" want to slink, it is NOT 5 or
    10 or even (*chuckle*) 30%.

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

    On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:10:58 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > The Ghost In The Machine writes:
    >
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hadron
    >>
    >> wrote
    >> on Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:03:46 +0200
    >> :
    >>> 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.

    >>
    >> Both the number and the ratio (or percentage) are in some dispute.

    >
    > No they are not. The ratio which is all we can SAMPLE is generally there
    > and about 1%.


    So it appears.


    >>
    >>>
    >>>> 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.

    >>
    >> 0.6% absent further information.

    >
    > What further information? What makes Linux so different to everything
    > else when these samples are taken.


    The numbers don't bode well for Linux so obviously the process must be
    flawed.

    Funny how Roy Schestowitz posted that his websites get 54 percent Linux
    hits.
    All of a sudden the measurement process is valid.

    What a farce these so called Linux advocates are.



    >>
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> 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.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Actually, they're not; Linux is *overrepresented*.
    >> Consider that the website www.w3schools.com is
    >> inherently Linux-biased (specs for IE are available
    >> at msdn.microsoft.com and therefore there's no point),
    >> for example.

    >
    > I have said this for ages. But am willing to concede it is not for the
    > sake of 0.3% or whatever it is.
    >
    > But the point is whichever way "advocates" want to slink, it is NOT 5 or
    > 10 or even (*chuckle*) 30%.


    It hovers between about 0.6 percent and 1 percent depending upon the month
    and where you look.

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

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

    On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:06:27 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > 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????????????????


    Maybe everyone needs to decide if they are going to talk about web
    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.

    >
    > 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.


    ... I think the Gnome is developed for people too ignorant to configure
    anything more difficult than the power button, and that KDE is a rich
    environment that allows beginners to be come productive and experienced
    users to easily configure their system.

    > You still seem
    > not to understand the issues discussed with regard to a fractured UI. I


    I don't believe in your fractured UI. Distro developers accommodate users
    by including multiple desktop environments so that users can choose to
    use the one they like. This also enables users to choose to use an app
    written for a non-native environment if they prefer it over the native
    app.

    > am truly astonished and can only assume you are stupid or trolling at
    > this stage.


    I can only assume you have no concept of choice.

    >
    >
    >>
    >>>>> 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?


    Count installed base by using numbers obtained from browsers that can
    fake information. I regularly set usr agent information in both Konqueror
    and FireFox. So, depending on how many users also so this, your web
    sample can be greatly skewed.

    >
    >
    >>
    >>> 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.


    You'll post your brain over?

    --
    Rick

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

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hadron

    wrote
    on Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:10:58 +0200
    :
    > The Ghost In The Machine writes:
    >
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hadron
    >>
    >> wrote
    >> on Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:03:46 +0200
    >> :
    >>> 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.

    >>
    >> Both the number and the ratio (or percentage) are in some dispute.

    >
    > No they are not. The ratio which is all we can SAMPLE is generally there
    > and about 1%.


    No, it's 0.68%, and it's hitslink instead of markethits. My bad.

    http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8

    >
    >>
    >>>
    >>>> 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.

    >>
    >> 0.6% absent further information.

    >
    > What further information? What makes Linux so different to everything
    > else when these samples are taken.


    Still 0.68%. The answer is Linux is *no different from
    anything else*. It is an OS kernel, much like NTOSKRNL.EXE
    or whatever Mac uses (last I was given to understand it
    was a BSD or Mach variant).

    >
    >>
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> 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 [0.68%]
    >>>> from [hitslink.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.


    (note edits to my text above)

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

    >>
    >> Actually, they're not; Linux is *overrepresented*.
    >> Consider that the website www.w3schools.com is
    >> inherently Linux-biased (specs for IE are available
    >> at msdn.microsoft.com and therefore there's no point),
    >> for example.

    >
    > I have said this for ages. But am willing to concede it is not for the
    > sake of 0.3% or whatever it is.
    >
    > But the point is whichever way "advocates" want to slink, it is NOT 5 or
    > 10 or even (*chuckle*) 30%.


    Truns out Firefox is 18.41%.

    http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=0

    Dispute as one will; maybe someone can provide
    alternate information that is more authoritative than
    hitslink. I can't say.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Linux. Because it's not the desktop that's
    important, it's the ability to DO something
    with it.
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

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

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Moshe Goldfarb.

    wrote
    on Fri, 6 Jun 2008 14:47:09 -0400
    <1feokuoaa2hxm$.1lask9ojf6xir.dlg@40tude.net>:
    > On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:10:58 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> The Ghost In The Machine writes:
    >>
    >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hadron
    >>>
    >>> wrote
    >>> on Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:03:46 +0200
    >>> :
    >>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> Both the number and the ratio (or percentage) are in some dispute.

    >>
    >> No they are not. The ratio which is all we can SAMPLE is generally there
    >> and about 1%.

    >
    > So it appears.
    >
    >
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> 0.6% absent further information.

    >>
    >> What further information? What makes Linux so different to everything
    >> else when these samples are taken.

    >
    > The numbers don't bode well for Linux so obviously the process must be
    > flawed.


    All processes are flawed, for many reasons; hitslink is no doubt already
    aware of this.

    >
    > Funny how Roy Schestowitz posted that his websites get 54 percent Linux
    > hits.


    Bias.

    > All of a sudden the measurement process is valid.
    >
    > What a farce these so called Linux advocates are.
    >
    >
    >
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 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.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Actually, they're not; Linux is *overrepresented*.
    >>> Consider that the website www.w3schools.com is
    >>> inherently Linux-biased (specs for IE are available
    >>> at msdn.microsoft.com and therefore there's no point),
    >>> for example.

    >>
    >> I have said this for ages. But am willing to concede it is not for the
    >> sake of 0.3% or whatever it is.
    >>
    >> But the point is whichever way "advocates" want to slink, it is NOT 5 or
    >> 10 or even (*chuckle*) 30%.

    >
    > It hovers between about 0.6 percent and 1 percent depending upon the month
    > and where you look.
    >


    0.68% as of this moment, compared with Mac's 7.83%.

    http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Linux. Because it's not the desktop that's
    important, it's the ability to DO something
    with it.
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

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


    "Rick" wrote in message
    newsMCdnYv6NdXPB9TVnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@supernews.com...
    > On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:06:27 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >> And how are these samples any less reliable than any others used the
    >> world over for measuring usage, audience etc?

    >
    > Count installed base by using numbers obtained from browsers that can
    > fake information. I regularly set usr agent information in both Konqueror
    > and FireFox. So, depending on how many users also so this, your web
    > sample can be greatly skewed.


    Why do you change the user-agent in Firefox? Go ahead and name a half-dozen
    or so sites that you visit often that do not support Firefox.

    Most people using Firefox run it on Windows. Most likely it is MS-Windows
    that is under represented by people changing the user-agent string in
    Firefox.



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

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


    "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
    newsajoh5-jkk.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
    >
    > Truns out Firefox is 18.41%.
    >
    > http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=0
    >
    > Dispute as one will; maybe someone can provide
    > alternate information that is more authoritative than
    > hitslink. I can't say.


    For starters the data on hitslink that you see is the "free stuff" - you
    have to pay to get the detailed info. I suspect the numbers that hitslink
    compiles have to be fairly reliable if companies are willing to pay for the
    data.

    Other than hitslink... do you think that people like Ballmer and Michael
    Dell don't know the number to within some small margin of error? Do you
    think that HP just guesses or "flips a coin" when they decided to introduce
    (or not introduce as we recently learned) a linux desktop? These companies
    sell multiple Billion$ of dollars in product each year and make Billion$ in
    profit. This information is available for a fee and you can be sure that
    Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc all have this information available.

    Only in idiot-land would people claim that it's "impossible to measure"
    linux. It's more convenient to make this ridiculous claim than to deal with
    the facts.



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

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

    On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 16:34:28 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

    > "Rick" wrote in message
    > newsMCdnYv6NdXPB9TVnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@supernews.com...
    >> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:06:27 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >>>
    >>> And how are these samples any less reliable than any others used the
    >>> world over for measuring usage, audience etc?

    >>
    >> Count installed base by using numbers obtained from browsers that can
    >> fake information. I regularly set usr agent information in both
    >> Konqueror and FireFox. So, depending on how many users also so this,
    >> your web sample can be greatly skewed.

    >
    > Why do you change the user-agent in Firefox? Go ahead and name a
    > half-dozen or so sites that you visit often that do not support Firefox.


    Off the top of my head, I can't tell you which sites. They are ones that
    throw up some kind of dialog, I change the user agent and look at them
    again, then move on.

    >
    > Most people using Firefox run it on Windows. Most likely it is
    > MS-Windows that is under represented by people changing the user-agent
    > string in Firefox.
    >



    --
    Rick

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

    The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

    > snip Moshe Goldfarbs bull****.



    Ghost, when are you going to show some respect & stop responding to these
    assinine trolls post?
    please killfile this "moshe" bastard.


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

    none of your buisiness wrote:
    > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >
    >> snip Moshe Goldfarbs bull****.

    >
    >
    > Ghost, when are you going to show some respect & stop responding to these
    > assinine trolls post?
    > please killfile this "moshe" bastard.
    >




    Oh look, it's Robert Cikovic!







    Message-ID:


    "i AM a lot smarter then you think. i also am NOT prejudist against people
    who do not have complete command of the English language."


    "why not do like i am going to do. send a abuse report to
    ab...@individual.net"


    "you might be able to pursuade them to kick their abusive user or sue them
    for liable"


    "he is Ned Ludd from Boston Mass.
    he's one of them paid punk shills that microsoft gave a free laptop to"


    "i also have three ruptured disks in my back & i am not
    able to lift anything over five pounds."


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

    "Rick" stated in post
    X7WdnYmZhrlWq9TVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 6/5/08 6:05 PM:

    > 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?


    Ah, yes, Linux users are more likely to spend time on the web - and thus are
    likely over-represented.

    >> 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?


    See above: Linux is likely over-represented.

    >> 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?


    Your needle is stuck.

    >> 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.


    Gee, what a comeback!

    --
    The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of
    limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and
    great nations. - David Friedman


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

    "Rick" stated in post
    X7WdnYiZhrmMqtTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 6/5/08 6:06 PM:

    ....

    >> 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.


    Hey! Rick's got a new mantra! Way to go, Rick!

    --
    I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.





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

    "Rick" stated in post
    _9Cdnc3ZHsxV8dTVnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@supernews.com on 6/5/08 9:55 PM:

    >>> 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.


    As noted: Linux is likely over-represented on the web.

    --
    The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of
    limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and
    great nations. - David Friedman


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

    On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:55:08 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > X7WdnYiZhrmMqtTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 6/5/08 6:06 PM:
    >
    > ...
    >
    >>> 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.

    >
    > Hey! Rick's got a new mantra! Way to go, Rick!


    Ya have to give Rick credit for his tenacity.
    He keeps getting spanked yet comes back for more.

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

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

    "Rick" stated in post
    trGdncHyNooz8NTVnZ2dnUVZ_qjinZ2d@supernews.com on 6/5/08 9:59 PM:

    ....
    >> 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.


    Gee, why not confiscate all computers?

    Web stats are the best we have - even though they likely over-represent
    Linux. At less than 1%.

    ....
    >>>> 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.


    You are so darn cute when you spew lies like that. Just thought you should
    know.

    >>>> 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.


    Why do you take it as "dissing" to talk about how Linux cannot reach 1% user
    base? Your old mantra was all about that!

    >> 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.


    What a comeback! You are so clever. Mind if I hire you next time a 2nd
    grader tries to insult someone?


    --
    I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.





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

    "Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
    3qfdidm4rwwa.kd34su36tsv2.dlg@40tude.net on 6/6/08 8:56 PM:

    > On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:55:08 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" stated in post
    >> X7WdnYiZhrmMqtTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 6/5/08 6:06 PM:
    >>
    >> ...
    >>
    >>>> 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.

    >>
    >> Hey! Rick's got a new mantra! Way to go, Rick!

    >
    > Ya have to give Rick credit for his tenacity.
    > He keeps getting spanked yet comes back for more.


    Have to give him credit because he will never earn it... he really thinks he
    has been consistent and right. Really. That is what makes him so funny.

    My current favorite is his pointing out how Linux is likely over-represented
    in the web stats.


    --
    Is Swiss cheese made out of hole milk?


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

    On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 21:15:30 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
    > 3qfdidm4rwwa.kd34su36tsv2.dlg@40tude.net on 6/6/08 8:56 PM:
    >
    >> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:55:08 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>> X7WdnYiZhrmMqtTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 6/5/08 6:06 PM:
    >>>
    >>> ...
    >>>
    >>>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> Hey! Rick's got a new mantra! Way to go, Rick!

    >>
    >> Ya have to give Rick credit for his tenacity.
    >> He keeps getting spanked yet comes back for more.

    >
    > Have to give him credit because he will never earn it... he really thinks he
    > has been consistent and right. Really. That is what makes him so funny.
    >
    > My current favorite is his pointing out how Linux is likely over-represented
    > in the web stats.


    I think Rick is confused over which position he is taking in a given thread
    because he seems to have so many different ones.
    Positions that is.

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

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

    "Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
    1jguev52lnjeu.1pcqy60n1m98p.dlg@40tude.net on 6/6/08 9:20 PM:

    > On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 21:15:30 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
    >> 3qfdidm4rwwa.kd34su36tsv2.dlg@40tude.net on 6/6/08 8:56 PM:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:55:08 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>>> X7WdnYiZhrmMqtTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 6/5/08 6:06 PM:
    >>>>
    >>>> ...
    >>>>
    >>>>>> 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.
    >>>>
    >>>> Hey! Rick's got a new mantra! Way to go, Rick!
    >>>
    >>> Ya have to give Rick credit for his tenacity.
    >>> He keeps getting spanked yet comes back for more.

    >>
    >> Have to give him credit because he will never earn it... he really thinks he
    >> has been consistent and right. Really. That is what makes him so funny.
    >>
    >> My current favorite is his pointing out how Linux is likely over-represented
    >> in the web stats.

    >
    > I think Rick is confused over which position he is taking in a given thread
    > because he seems to have so many different ones.
    > Positions that is.


    Rick: More positions than the Karma Sutra.


    --
    Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
    walnut paneling and an all leather interior.




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

    chrisv wrote:
    > William Poaster wrote:
    >> Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >>> Tim Smith wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> It may be hard to believe, but there are actually new people coming
    >>>> to this group. The new names aren't *all* just new HPT and Culley
    >>>> sock puppets.
    >>>
    >>> It would be nice if you actually posted some content.

    >>
    >> And the Mac Smith troll can post proof of these socks, can he? Or STFU.

    >
    > It seems that Timmy, like many hypocritical fsckwits, does not differentiate
    > between occasional nym changes, just "for the heck of it", and rampant
    > nym-shifting designed to evade kill-filters. Of course, a few advocates
    > like to do the former, and, really, no one should have a problem with it.
    >
    > It's just one more way for a low-life to attack his moral superiors.


    Basically he fulfills,

    http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/
    http://tinyurl.com/4obfht

    7.6 Trespasser Disinformation Tactics

    [6.] When your tactics are turned on you, call your opponents trolls. Do not
    accept the fact that by calling someone using your tactics a troll that makes
    you the real troll.

    45. Criticize Linux Advocates but ignore anti-Linux propagandist
    transgressions. Always criticize the behavior of Linux Advocates, but ignore
    the same and even worse transgressions are being committed by your fellow
    Trespassers.
    --
    HPT

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