[News] [Rival] Microsoft Lost ~$7 billion on XBox, Disasters Everywhere - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] [Rival] Microsoft Lost ~$7 billion on XBox, Disasters Everywhere - Linux ; "Phil Da Lick!" writes: > The Ghost In The Machine wrote: >>>>> Look up last years total market and how Linux took >>>>> the lion's share of it. >>>> Total market share of *what*? >>>> >>>> Desktops? Notebooks? Mobiles? Microwave ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 43

Thread: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Lost ~$7 billion on XBox, Disasters Everywhere

  1. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Will increase 15% to $19 Billion this year

    "Phil Da Lick!" writes:

    > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>>>> Look up last years total market and how Linux took
    >>>>> the lion's share of it.
    >>>> Total market share of *what*?
    >>>>
    >>>> Desktops? Notebooks? Mobiles? Microwave ovens? Pet rocks?
    >>>> :-)
    >>>
    >>> That would be share of browser statistics at bbc.co.uk. Apparently
    >>> thats the authoritative statistic.

    >>
    >> I'm assuming you're referring to (according to a Google search):

    >
    > Well dunno, I'm not in the business of judging the entire computer
    > operating system install space by the hits on one particular website
    > but I'll assume for the purposes of this thread that this is the data
    > that Hadron and the rest of the dummy brigade trumpet...
    >
    >
    >> http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/20...r_agents_1.php
    >>

    >
    > Title of your link: "The software used to access the BBC homepage"
    > Subtitle "Studying the software that visits the BBC homepage". Notice
    > the common thread?
    >
    >
    >> So now color me confused here.

    >
    > Easily done by the looks of it.
    >
    > I repeat my statement in another thread:
    >
    > One site is not indicative of anything regardless of its location,
    > traffic, political bias, charitable contributions, sensitivity to the
    > force, or alignment with Jupiter on the summer solstice. Anybody who
    > uses one site as a means to try to prove anything is either incredibly
    > stupid or pushing an agenda.


    And how many people visit and what OS they use. Christ on a bike you're
    as thick as two short planks. You appear to have zero understanding of
    targeted sampling.

    --
    "What's wrong, (p)Rick? Were you defending the innocence of Hans "The
    Linux Butcher" Reiser, and now that he's about to give up the body
    you're embarrassed at being an idiot?"
    -- DFS in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  2. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Willincrease 15% to $19 Billion this year

    Hadron wrote:
    > "Phil Da Lick!" writes:
    >
    >> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>>>>> Look up last years total market and how Linux took
    >>>>>> the lion's share of it.
    >>>>> Total market share of *what*?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Desktops? Notebooks? Mobiles? Microwave ovens? Pet rocks?
    >>>>> :-)
    >>>> That would be share of browser statistics at bbc.co.uk. Apparently
    >>>> thats the authoritative statistic.
    >>> I'm assuming you're referring to (according to a Google search):

    >> Well dunno, I'm not in the business of judging the entire computer
    >> operating system install space by the hits on one particular website
    >> but I'll assume for the purposes of this thread that this is the data
    >> that Hadron and the rest of the dummy brigade trumpet...
    >>
    >>
    >>> http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/20...r_agents_1.php
    >>>

    >> Title of your link: "The software used to access the BBC homepage"
    >> Subtitle "Studying the software that visits the BBC homepage". Notice
    >> the common thread?
    >>
    >>
    >>> So now color me confused here.

    >> Easily done by the looks of it.
    >>
    >> I repeat my statement in another thread:
    >>
    >> One site is not indicative of anything regardless of its location,
    >> traffic, political bias, charitable contributions, sensitivity to the
    >> force, or alignment with Jupiter on the summer solstice. Anybody who
    >> uses one site as a means to try to prove anything is either incredibly
    >> stupid or pushing an agenda.

    >
    > And how many people visit and what OS they use. Christ on a bike you're
    > as thick as two short planks. You appear to have zero understanding of
    > targeted sampling.


    Targeted sampling proves nothing other than what you want it to prove.
    If it doesn't - choose another target.

    So bbc.co.uk had 0.8% linux visitors. OK. So what, I just blew my load
    knowing that. That still doesn't prove anything. If you knew jack about
    anything you'd realise that but then again you're thick as pig**** so
    there you go. Funny thing is you think targeted sampling is indicative
    of the widest demographic.

    Thats two today Quack:

    "Information is property" - Hadron Quack, cola, 18 July 2008.
    "You appear to have zero understanding of targeted sampling." - Hadron
    Quack, cola 18 July 2008, explaining how bbc.co.uk usage stats define
    global linux usage.
    These will be enshrined in cola folklore for years to come.

  3. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Will increase 15% to $19 Billion this year

    "Phil Da Lick!" writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >> "Phil Da Lick!" writes:
    >>
    >>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>>>>>> Look up last years total market and how Linux took
    >>>>>>> the lion's share of it.
    >>>>>> Total market share of *what*?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Desktops? Notebooks? Mobiles? Microwave ovens? Pet rocks?
    >>>>>> :-)
    >>>>> That would be share of browser statistics at bbc.co.uk. Apparently
    >>>>> thats the authoritative statistic.
    >>>> I'm assuming you're referring to (according to a Google search):
    >>> Well dunno, I'm not in the business of judging the entire computer
    >>> operating system install space by the hits on one particular website
    >>> but I'll assume for the purposes of this thread that this is the data
    >>> that Hadron and the rest of the dummy brigade trumpet...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/20...r_agents_1.php
    >>>>
    >>> Title of your link: "The software used to access the BBC homepage"
    >>> Subtitle "Studying the software that visits the BBC homepage". Notice
    >>> the common thread?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> So now color me confused here.
    >>> Easily done by the looks of it.
    >>>
    >>> I repeat my statement in another thread:
    >>>
    >>> One site is not indicative of anything regardless of its location,
    >>> traffic, political bias, charitable contributions, sensitivity to the
    >>> force, or alignment with Jupiter on the summer solstice. Anybody who
    >>> uses one site as a means to try to prove anything is either incredibly
    >>> stupid or pushing an agenda.

    >>
    >> And how many people visit and what OS they use. Christ on a bike you're
    >> as thick as two short planks. You appear to have zero understanding of
    >> targeted sampling.

    >
    > Targeted sampling proves nothing other than what you want it to
    > prove. If it doesn't - choose another target.


    Correct. And they were interested how many of their visitors used
    Linux. 0.8% or so did. So if you can suggest any reason why UK Linux
    users would not visit the BBC then please do.

    As it is, it is clear that you are either unwilling or too stupid to
    recognise a fairly significant sample.

    Possibly both.

  4. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Willincrease 15% to $19 Billion this year

    Hadron wrote:
    > "Phil Da Lick!" writes:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>> "Phil Da Lick!" writes:
    >>>
    >>>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>>>>>>> Look up last years total market and how Linux took
    >>>>>>>> the lion's share of it.
    >>>>>>> Total market share of *what*?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Desktops? Notebooks? Mobiles? Microwave ovens? Pet rocks?
    >>>>>>> :-)
    >>>>>> That would be share of browser statistics at bbc.co.uk. Apparently
    >>>>>> thats the authoritative statistic.
    >>>>> I'm assuming you're referring to (according to a Google search):
    >>>> Well dunno, I'm not in the business of judging the entire computer
    >>>> operating system install space by the hits on one particular website
    >>>> but I'll assume for the purposes of this thread that this is the data
    >>>> that Hadron and the rest of the dummy brigade trumpet...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/20...r_agents_1.php
    >>>>>
    >>>> Title of your link: "The software used to access the BBC homepage"
    >>>> Subtitle "Studying the software that visits the BBC homepage". Notice
    >>>> the common thread?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> So now color me confused here.
    >>>> Easily done by the looks of it.
    >>>>
    >>>> I repeat my statement in another thread:
    >>>>
    >>>> One site is not indicative of anything regardless of its location,
    >>>> traffic, political bias, charitable contributions, sensitivity to the
    >>>> force, or alignment with Jupiter on the summer solstice. Anybody who
    >>>> uses one site as a means to try to prove anything is either incredibly
    >>>> stupid or pushing an agenda.
    >>> And how many people visit and what OS they use. Christ on a bike you're
    >>> as thick as two short planks. You appear to have zero understanding of
    >>> targeted sampling.

    >> Targeted sampling proves nothing other than what you want it to
    >> prove. If it doesn't - choose another target.

    >
    > Correct. And they were interested how many of their visitors used
    > Linux. 0.8% or so did. So if you can suggest any reason why UK Linux
    > users would not visit the BBC then please do.
    >
    > As it is, it is clear that you are either unwilling or too stupid to
    > recognise a fairly significant sample.


    "The software used to access the BBC homepage"

    "Studying the software that visits the BBC homepage"

    Fairly significant sample. From the whole internet. [ignoring the fact
    there may be millions of pcs of every variety not online].

    ROTFLMAO!

  5. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Will increase 15% to $19 Billion this year

    "Phil Da Lick!" writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >> "Phil Da Lick!" writes:
    >>
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>> "Phil Da Lick!" writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> Look up last years total market and how Linux took
    >>>>>>>>> the lion's share of it.
    >>>>>>>> Total market share of *what*?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Desktops? Notebooks? Mobiles? Microwave ovens? Pet rocks?
    >>>>>>>> :-)
    >>>>>>> That would be share of browser statistics at bbc.co.uk. Apparently
    >>>>>>> thats the authoritative statistic.
    >>>>>> I'm assuming you're referring to (according to a Google search):
    >>>>> Well dunno, I'm not in the business of judging the entire computer
    >>>>> operating system install space by the hits on one particular website
    >>>>> but I'll assume for the purposes of this thread that this is the data
    >>>>> that Hadron and the rest of the dummy brigade trumpet...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/20...r_agents_1.php
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Title of your link: "The software used to access the BBC homepage"
    >>>>> Subtitle "Studying the software that visits the BBC homepage". Notice
    >>>>> the common thread?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> So now color me confused here.
    >>>>> Easily done by the looks of it.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I repeat my statement in another thread:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> One site is not indicative of anything regardless of its location,
    >>>>> traffic, political bias, charitable contributions, sensitivity to the
    >>>>> force, or alignment with Jupiter on the summer solstice. Anybody who
    >>>>> uses one site as a means to try to prove anything is either incredibly
    >>>>> stupid or pushing an agenda.
    >>>> And how many people visit and what OS they use. Christ on a bike you're
    >>>> as thick as two short planks. You appear to have zero understanding of
    >>>> targeted sampling.
    >>> Targeted sampling proves nothing other than what you want it to
    >>> prove. If it doesn't - choose another target.

    >>
    >> Correct. And they were interested how many of their visitors used
    >> Linux. 0.8% or so did. So if you can suggest any reason why UK Linux
    >> users would not visit the BBC then please do.
    >>
    >> As it is, it is clear that you are either unwilling or too stupid to
    >> recognise a fairly significant sample.

    >
    > "The software used to access the BBC homepage"
    >
    > "Studying the software that visits the BBC homepage"
    >
    > Fairly significant sample. From the whole internet. [ignoring the fact
    > there may be millions of pcs of every variety not online].


    Err yes. And you will know I pointed out why the results might even be
    biased in favor of Linux.

    >
    > ROTFLMAO!


    You really are that stupid aren't you? Amazing. You are simply clueless
    if you think this sample is "meaningless".

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

  6. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Will increase 15% to $19 Billion this year

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Phil Da Lick!

    wrote
    on Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:07:36 +0100
    :
    > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>>>> Look up last years total market and how Linux took
    >>>>> the lion's share of it.
    >>>> Total market share of *what*?
    >>>>
    >>>> Desktops? Notebooks? Mobiles? Microwave ovens? Pet rocks?
    >>>> :-)
    >>>
    >>> That would be share of browser statistics at bbc.co.uk. Apparently thats
    >>> the authoritative statistic.

    >>
    >> I'm assuming you're referring to (according to a Google search):

    >
    > Well dunno, I'm not in the business of judging the entire computer
    > operating system install space by the hits on one particular website but
    > I'll assume for the purposes of this thread that this is the data that
    > Hadron and the rest of the dummy brigade trumpet...


    If it is, they need more recent data.

    >
    >
    >> http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/20...r_agents_1.php
    >>

    >
    > Title of your link: "The software used to access the BBC homepage"
    > Subtitle "Studying the software that visits the BBC homepage". Notice
    > the common thread?


    Yes.

    >
    >
    > > So now color me confused here.

    >
    > Easily done by the looks of it.


    Can I help it if I enter threads late? :-)

    >
    > I repeat my statement in another thread:
    >
    > One site is not indicative of anything regardless of its location,
    > traffic, political bias, charitable contributions, sensitivity to the
    > force, or alignment with Jupiter on the summer solstice. Anybody who
    > uses one site as a means to try to prove anything is either incredibly
    > stupid or pushing an agenda.


    One site is a sample. One hopes it is accurate but there
    are many issues.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Linux. Because life's too short for a buggy OS.
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  7. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Willincrease 15% to $19 Billion this year

    Hadron wrote:
    > "Phil Da Lick!" writes:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>> "Phil Da Lick!" writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>>> "Phil Da Lick!" writes:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>> Look up last years total market and how Linux took
    >>>>>>>>>> the lion's share of it.
    >>>>>>>>> Total market share of *what*?
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Desktops? Notebooks? Mobiles? Microwave ovens? Pet rocks?
    >>>>>>>>> :-)
    >>>>>>>> That would be share of browser statistics at bbc.co.uk. Apparently
    >>>>>>>> thats the authoritative statistic.
    >>>>>>> I'm assuming you're referring to (according to a Google search):
    >>>>>> Well dunno, I'm not in the business of judging the entire computer
    >>>>>> operating system install space by the hits on one particular website
    >>>>>> but I'll assume for the purposes of this thread that this is the data
    >>>>>> that Hadron and the rest of the dummy brigade trumpet...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/20...r_agents_1.php
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> Title of your link: "The software used to access the BBC homepage"
    >>>>>> Subtitle "Studying the software that visits the BBC homepage". Notice
    >>>>>> the common thread?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> So now color me confused here.
    >>>>>> Easily done by the looks of it.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I repeat my statement in another thread:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> One site is not indicative of anything regardless of its location,
    >>>>>> traffic, political bias, charitable contributions, sensitivity to the
    >>>>>> force, or alignment with Jupiter on the summer solstice. Anybody who
    >>>>>> uses one site as a means to try to prove anything is either incredibly
    >>>>>> stupid or pushing an agenda.
    >>>>> And how many people visit and what OS they use. Christ on a bike you're
    >>>>> as thick as two short planks. You appear to have zero understanding of
    >>>>> targeted sampling.
    >>>> Targeted sampling proves nothing other than what you want it to
    >>>> prove. If it doesn't - choose another target.
    >>> Correct. And they were interested how many of their visitors used
    >>> Linux. 0.8% or so did. So if you can suggest any reason why UK Linux
    >>> users would not visit the BBC then please do.
    >>>
    >>> As it is, it is clear that you are either unwilling or too stupid to
    >>> recognise a fairly significant sample.

    >> "The software used to access the BBC homepage"
    >>
    >> "Studying the software that visits the BBC homepage"
    >>
    >> Fairly significant sample. From the whole internet. [ignoring the fact
    >> there may be millions of pcs of every variety not online].

    >
    > Err yes. And you will know I pointed out why the results might even be
    > biased in favor of Linux.
    >
    >> ROTFLMAO!

    >
    > You really are that stupid aren't you? Amazing. You are simply clueless
    > if you think this sample is "meaningless".
    >


    Come on Quack, you can do better than that. Stop squirming and prove
    beyond a shadow of a doubt that web stats from bbc.co.uk are precisely
    and truthfully indicative of total install base worldwide.

    Or admit they're not necessarily indicative.

  8. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Will increase 15% to $19 Billion this year

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Phil Da Lick!

    wrote
    on Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:48:04 +0100
    <38qdnV0wybMEgBzVnZ2dnUVZ8vednZ2d@posted.plusnet>:
    > Hadron wrote:


    [snip]

    >> You really are that stupid aren't you? Amazing. You are simply clueless
    >> if you think this sample is "meaningless".
    >>

    >
    > Come on Quack, you can do better than that. Stop squirming and prove
    > beyond a shadow of a doubt that web stats from bbc.co.uk are precisely
    > and truthfully indicative of total install base worldwide.
    >
    > Or admit they're not necessarily indicative.


    I'd be far more interested in news.bbc.co.uk myself. Or do
    the stats include such?

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Windows. Because it's not a question of if.
    It's a question of when.
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  9. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Willincrease 15% to $19 Billion this year

    "The Ghost In The Machine" stated in post
    31j7l5-5u6.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 7/18/08 3:45 PM:

    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Phil Da Lick!
    >
    > wrote
    > on Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:07:36 +0100
    > :
    >> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>>>>> Look up last years total market and how Linux took
    >>>>>> the lion's share of it.
    >>>>> Total market share of *what*?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Desktops? Notebooks? Mobiles? Microwave ovens? Pet rocks?
    >>>>> :-)
    >>>>
    >>>> That would be share of browser statistics at bbc.co.uk. Apparently thats
    >>>> the authoritative statistic.
    >>>
    >>> I'm assuming you're referring to (according to a Google search):

    >>
    >> Well dunno, I'm not in the business of judging the entire computer
    >> operating system install space by the hits on one particular website but
    >> I'll assume for the purposes of this thread that this is the data that
    >> Hadron and the rest of the dummy brigade trumpet...

    >
    > If it is, they need more recent data.
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>> http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/20...r_agents_1.php
    >>>

    >>
    >> Title of your link: "The software used to access the BBC homepage"
    >> Subtitle "Studying the software that visits the BBC homepage". Notice
    >> the common thread?

    >
    > Yes.
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>> So now color me confused here.

    >>
    >> Easily done by the looks of it.

    >
    > Can I help it if I enter threads late? :-)
    >
    >>
    >> I repeat my statement in another thread:
    >>
    >> One site is not indicative of anything regardless of its location,
    >> traffic, political bias, charitable contributions, sensitivity to the
    >> force, or alignment with Jupiter on the summer solstice. Anybody who
    >> uses one site as a means to try to prove anything is either incredibly
    >> stupid or pushing an agenda.

    >
    > One site is a sample. One hopes it is accurate but there
    > are many issues.


    There are stats that look at many, many websites. Linux has not, as far as
    I have seen, ever hit 1% of web hits... and Linux users are likely to be
    online more than others (more tech savvy and the like).


    --
    Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value.
    --Albert Einstein


  10. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Willincrease 15% to $19 Billion this year

    Snit wrote:
    > "The Ghost In The Machine" stated in post
    > 31j7l5-5u6.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 7/18/08 3:45 PM:
    >
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Phil Da Lick!
    >>
    >> wrote
    >> on Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:07:36 +0100
    >> :
    >>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>>>>>> Look up last years total market and how Linux took
    >>>>>>> the lion's share of it.
    >>>>>> Total market share of *what*?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Desktops? Notebooks? Mobiles? Microwave ovens? Pet rocks?
    >>>>>> :-)
    >>>>> That would be share of browser statistics at bbc.co.uk. Apparently thats
    >>>>> the authoritative statistic.
    >>>> I'm assuming you're referring to (according to a Google search):
    >>> Well dunno, I'm not in the business of judging the entire computer
    >>> operating system install space by the hits on one particular website but
    >>> I'll assume for the purposes of this thread that this is the data that
    >>> Hadron and the rest of the dummy brigade trumpet...

    >> If it is, they need more recent data.
    >>
    >>>
    >>>> http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/20...r_agents_1.php
    >>>>
    >>> Title of your link: "The software used to access the BBC homepage"
    >>> Subtitle "Studying the software that visits the BBC homepage". Notice
    >>> the common thread?

    >> Yes.
    >>
    >>>
    >>>> So now color me confused here.
    >>> Easily done by the looks of it.

    >> Can I help it if I enter threads late? :-)
    >>
    >>> I repeat my statement in another thread:
    >>>
    >>> One site is not indicative of anything regardless of its location,
    >>> traffic, political bias, charitable contributions, sensitivity to the
    >>> force, or alignment with Jupiter on the summer solstice. Anybody who
    >>> uses one site as a means to try to prove anything is either incredibly
    >>> stupid or pushing an agenda.

    >> One site is a sample. One hopes it is accurate but there
    >> are many issues.

    >
    > There are stats that look at many, many websites. Linux has not, as far as
    > I have seen, ever hit 1% of web hits... and Linux users are likely to be
    > online more than others (more tech savvy and the like).


    Are there any stats anywhere that look at 100% of web usage and 100% of
    pcs not online? I'd love to see them.


  11. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Will increase 15% to $19 Billion this year

    The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, 7
    >
    > wrote
    > on Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:48:55 GMT
    > :
    >> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>
    >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ezekiel
    >>>
    >>> wrote
    >>> on Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:47:38 -0400
    >>> :
    >>>>
    >>>> "7" wrote in message
    >>>> news:7ZOfk.28859$E41.26112@text.news.virginmedia.c om...
    >>>>> Micoshaft asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Ezekiel
    >>>>> wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Department of Marketing:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Yeah... since they /only/ make $19 Billion per year in *PROFIT*
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Not as much as embedded Linux alone selling 3 million embedded Linux
    >>>>> gadgets
    >>>>> PER DAY and earning at least 270 billion dollars in revenue.
    >>>>> Even a conservative 15% profit would push it past 40 billion dollars
    >>>>> profit per year.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Too bad that I can back up my claims with official SEC filings that
    >>>> have been independently audited. While you don't have squat to backup
    >>>> your bull**** other than some lamer "Google is your friend" nonsense.
    >>>> Like you Joseph Michael... your "numbers" are a pathetic joke.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
    >>>
    >>> Unless "7" can point to specific manufacturers of Linux
    >>> gadgets, I have to agree with ole Zeke here.

    >>
    >> Keeping up to date is hard work?
    >> Google is your friend.
    >> Look up last years total market and how Linux took
    >> the lion's share of it.

    >
    > Total market share of *what*?
    >
    > Desktops? Notebooks? Mobiles? Microwave ovens? Pet rocks?
    > :-)


    Keep going - you will eventually hit it!
    Or read the first few lines of the post which states embedded Linux!


    >>> I will
    >>> note, however, that according to hitslink and the rise
    >>> of desktops in general,

    >>
    >> Linux isn't just about Desktops.
    >> Embedded Linux sells 3 million+ embedded Linux gadgets PER DAY
    >> alone.

    >
    > I'd like more specifics as to where you find this figure.


    Google for embedded Linux market share.


    >>> we can at least calculate the
    >>> approximate number of new Linux desktops out there,
    >>> especially since the percentage has gone up from 0.47%
    >>> to 0.80% in the space of a year -- a percentage that is
    >>> admittedly tracking a moving target, and that therefore
    >>> the % of Linux boxes bought relative to all boxes is *more*
    >>> than the difference of 0.33% which is implied.

    >>
    >>
    >> When these ad hoc micoshaftic methods
    >> gets adopted as an approved method, call me.
    >>

    >
    > Who is supposed to approve it?


    Why ask? Google for answer!

    Lets call in the ISO people!
    They are about decent standards! :-)

    Normally you propose a measurement standard and then
    submit it for peer review by some academic or industry
    body. There are many, so choosing the big + right one is
    important and its got to be in their jurisdiction.
    Say ISO for example. But there is also IEEE and
    many others that may look at it.
    Once a reputable body has peer reviewed it, they will approve
    it as a standard or hand it all back and tell you what the flaws are.

    That why micoshaft resorts to ad-hoc approaches and then
    dress it up with companies like Gartner shills to hide
    the fact that all their market penetration
    studies are ad-hoc and un-approved. For example, they
    exclude all non-commercial sales. They never bother
    to mention that in boardrooms. Gartner shills for example
    never mentioned in board rooms that their TCO was ad-hoc
    methodology and used un-approved methodologies. All the people
    who purchased their reports with ad-hoc statistics
    are entitled to a refund my opinion!
    If they did it properly using approved methods, then they would have to put
    Linux in better light because it is distributed (not sold)
    and report it it as having a much larger market share and lower TCO for
    example.


    > You're right in that the
    > numbers are rather flawed, especially if one considers
    > such things as website bias, dualboots and emulators,
    > and embedded devices such as, well, car ignitions, that
    > don't *need* to browse the Web to get their job done.




  12. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Willincrease 15% to $19 Billion this year

    "Phil Da Lick!" stated in post
    RvydnTtWwJSbvhzVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet on 7/18/08 4:11 PM:

    > Snit wrote:
    >> "The Ghost In The Machine" stated in post
    >> 31j7l5-5u6.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 7/18/08 3:45 PM:
    >>
    >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Phil Da Lick!
    >>>
    >>> wrote
    >>> on Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:07:36 +0100
    >>> :
    >>>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>>>>>>> Look up last years total market and how Linux took
    >>>>>>>> the lion's share of it.
    >>>>>>> Total market share of *what*?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Desktops? Notebooks? Mobiles? Microwave ovens? Pet rocks?
    >>>>>>> :-)
    >>>>>> That would be share of browser statistics at bbc.co.uk. Apparently thats
    >>>>>> the authoritative statistic.
    >>>>> I'm assuming you're referring to (according to a Google search):
    >>>> Well dunno, I'm not in the business of judging the entire computer
    >>>> operating system install space by the hits on one particular website but
    >>>> I'll assume for the purposes of this thread that this is the data that
    >>>> Hadron and the rest of the dummy brigade trumpet...
    >>> If it is, they need more recent data.
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/20...r_agents_1.php
    >>>>>
    >>>> Title of your link: "The software used to access the BBC homepage"
    >>>> Subtitle "Studying the software that visits the BBC homepage". Notice
    >>>> the common thread?
    >>> Yes.
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> So now color me confused here.
    >>>> Easily done by the looks of it.
    >>> Can I help it if I enter threads late? :-)
    >>>
    >>>> I repeat my statement in another thread:
    >>>>
    >>>> One site is not indicative of anything regardless of its location,
    >>>> traffic, political bias, charitable contributions, sensitivity to the
    >>>> force, or alignment with Jupiter on the summer solstice. Anybody who
    >>>> uses one site as a means to try to prove anything is either incredibly
    >>>> stupid or pushing an agenda.
    >>> One site is a sample. One hopes it is accurate but there
    >>> are many issues.

    >>
    >> There are stats that look at many, many websites. Linux has not, as far as
    >> I have seen, ever hit 1% of web hits... and Linux users are likely to be
    >> online more than others (more tech savvy and the like).

    >
    > Are there any stats anywhere that look at 100% of web usage and 100% of
    > pcs not online? I'd love to see them.
    >

    Do you understand the concept of using sample sets?


    --
    .... something I'm committed to work on, focusing increasing amounts of
    resources of Canonical on figuring out on how we actually move the desktop
    experience forward to compete with Mac OS X.
    - Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)


  13. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Will increase 15% to $19 Billion this year

    "Phil Da Lick!" writes:

    > Snit wrote:
    >> "The Ghost In The Machine" stated in post
    >> 31j7l5-5u6.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 7/18/08 3:45 PM:
    >>
    >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Phil Da Lick!
    >>>
    >>> wrote
    >>> on Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:07:36 +0100
    >>> :
    >>>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>>>>>>> Look up last years total market and how Linux took
    >>>>>>>> the lion's share of it.
    >>>>>>> Total market share of *what*?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Desktops? Notebooks? Mobiles? Microwave ovens? Pet rocks?
    >>>>>>> :-)
    >>>>>> That would be share of browser statistics at bbc.co.uk. Apparently thats
    >>>>>> the authoritative statistic.
    >>>>> I'm assuming you're referring to (according to a Google search):
    >>>> Well dunno, I'm not in the business of judging the entire computer
    >>>> operating system install space by the hits on one particular website but
    >>>> I'll assume for the purposes of this thread that this is the data that
    >>>> Hadron and the rest of the dummy brigade trumpet...
    >>> If it is, they need more recent data.
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/20...r_agents_1.php
    >>>>>
    >>>> Title of your link: "The software used to access the BBC homepage"
    >>>> Subtitle "Studying the software that visits the BBC homepage". Notice
    >>>> the common thread?
    >>> Yes.
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> So now color me confused here.
    >>>> Easily done by the looks of it.
    >>> Can I help it if I enter threads late? :-)
    >>>
    >>>> I repeat my statement in another thread:
    >>>>
    >>>> One site is not indicative of anything regardless of its location,
    >>>> traffic, political bias, charitable contributions, sensitivity to the
    >>>> force, or alignment with Jupiter on the summer solstice. Anybody who
    >>>> uses one site as a means to try to prove anything is either incredibly
    >>>> stupid or pushing an agenda.
    >>> One site is a sample. One hopes it is accurate but there
    >>> are many issues.

    >>
    >> There are stats that look at many, many websites. Linux has not, as far as
    >> I have seen, ever hit 1% of web hits... and Linux users are likely to be
    >> online more than others (more tech savvy and the like).

    >
    > Are there any stats anywhere that look at 100% of web usage and 100%
    > of pcs not online? I'd love to see them.
    >


    Ye gods. You really, really are that stupid! Hilarious.

    --
    - "Actually XP *is* getting press, but most of it is along the lines of
    "we're going to wait and see", in other words not very good."
    comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy

  14. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Will increase 15% to $19 Billion this year

    Snit writes:

    > "Phil Da Lick!" stated in post
    > RvydnTtWwJSbvhzVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet on 7/18/08 4:11 PM:
    >
    >> Snit wrote:
    >>> "The Ghost In The Machine" stated in post
    >>> 31j7l5-5u6.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 7/18/08 3:45 PM:
    >>>
    >>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Phil Da Lick!
    >>>>
    >>>> wrote
    >>>> on Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:07:36 +0100
    >>>> :
    >>>>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> Look up last years total market and how Linux took
    >>>>>>>>> the lion's share of it.
    >>>>>>>> Total market share of *what*?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Desktops? Notebooks? Mobiles? Microwave ovens? Pet rocks?
    >>>>>>>> :-)
    >>>>>>> That would be share of browser statistics at bbc.co.uk. Apparently thats
    >>>>>>> the authoritative statistic.
    >>>>>> I'm assuming you're referring to (according to a Google search):
    >>>>> Well dunno, I'm not in the business of judging the entire computer
    >>>>> operating system install space by the hits on one particular website but
    >>>>> I'll assume for the purposes of this thread that this is the data that
    >>>>> Hadron and the rest of the dummy brigade trumpet...
    >>>> If it is, they need more recent data.
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/20...r_agents_1.php
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Title of your link: "The software used to access the BBC homepage"
    >>>>> Subtitle "Studying the software that visits the BBC homepage". Notice
    >>>>> the common thread?
    >>>> Yes.
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> So now color me confused here.
    >>>>> Easily done by the looks of it.
    >>>> Can I help it if I enter threads late? :-)
    >>>>
    >>>>> I repeat my statement in another thread:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> One site is not indicative of anything regardless of its location,
    >>>>> traffic, political bias, charitable contributions, sensitivity to the
    >>>>> force, or alignment with Jupiter on the summer solstice. Anybody who
    >>>>> uses one site as a means to try to prove anything is either incredibly
    >>>>> stupid or pushing an agenda.
    >>>> One site is a sample. One hopes it is accurate but there
    >>>> are many issues.
    >>>
    >>> There are stats that look at many, many websites. Linux has not, as far as
    >>> I have seen, ever hit 1% of web hits... and Linux users are likely to be
    >>> online more than others (more tech savvy and the like).

    >>
    >> Are there any stats anywhere that look at 100% of web usage and 100% of
    >> pcs not online? I'd love to see them.
    >>

    > Do you understand the concept of using sample sets?


    It's amazing isn't it.

    Can you imagine this arsehole working for a company where he was asked
    to do some market research on possible sales figures for a new product!
    He would have to speak to every person in the world!

    I simply can not believe he is not trolling here. Surely no one can be
    that stupid (well except for High Plains Hypocrite obviously).

    --
    - "Actually XP *is* getting press, but most of it is along the lines of
    "we're going to wait and see", in other words not very good."
    comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy

  15. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Will increase 15% to $19 Billion this year

    "Phil Da Lick!" writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >> "Phil Da Lick!" writes:
    >>
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>> "Phil Da Lick!" writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>>>> "Phil Da Lick!" writes:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>> Look up last years total market and how Linux took
    >>>>>>>>>>> the lion's share of it.
    >>>>>>>>>> Total market share of *what*?
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Desktops? Notebooks? Mobiles? Microwave ovens? Pet rocks?
    >>>>>>>>>> :-)
    >>>>>>>>> That would be share of browser statistics at bbc.co.uk. Apparently
    >>>>>>>>> thats the authoritative statistic.
    >>>>>>>> I'm assuming you're referring to (according to a Google search):
    >>>>>>> Well dunno, I'm not in the business of judging the entire computer
    >>>>>>> operating system install space by the hits on one particular website
    >>>>>>> but I'll assume for the purposes of this thread that this is the data
    >>>>>>> that Hadron and the rest of the dummy brigade trumpet...
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/20...r_agents_1.php
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Title of your link: "The software used to access the BBC homepage"
    >>>>>>> Subtitle "Studying the software that visits the BBC homepage". Notice
    >>>>>>> the common thread?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> So now color me confused here.
    >>>>>>> Easily done by the looks of it.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I repeat my statement in another thread:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> One site is not indicative of anything regardless of its location,
    >>>>>>> traffic, political bias, charitable contributions, sensitivity to the
    >>>>>>> force, or alignment with Jupiter on the summer solstice. Anybody who
    >>>>>>> uses one site as a means to try to prove anything is either incredibly
    >>>>>>> stupid or pushing an agenda.
    >>>>>> And how many people visit and what OS they use. Christ on a bike you're
    >>>>>> as thick as two short planks. You appear to have zero understanding of
    >>>>>> targeted sampling.
    >>>>> Targeted sampling proves nothing other than what you want it to
    >>>>> prove. If it doesn't - choose another target.
    >>>> Correct. And they were interested how many of their visitors used
    >>>> Linux. 0.8% or so did. So if you can suggest any reason why UK Linux
    >>>> users would not visit the BBC then please do.
    >>>>
    >>>> As it is, it is clear that you are either unwilling or too stupid to
    >>>> recognise a fairly significant sample.
    >>> "The software used to access the BBC homepage"
    >>>
    >>> "Studying the software that visits the BBC homepage"
    >>>
    >>> Fairly significant sample. From the whole internet. [ignoring the fact
    >>> there may be millions of pcs of every variety not online].

    >>
    >> Err yes. And you will know I pointed out why the results might even be
    >> biased in favor of Linux.
    >>
    >>> ROTFLMAO!

    >>
    >> You really are that stupid aren't you? Amazing. You are simply clueless
    >> if you think this sample is "meaningless".
    >>

    >
    > Come on Quack, you can do better than that. Stop squirming and prove
    > beyond a shadow of a doubt that web stats from bbc.co.uk are precisely
    > and truthfully indicative of total install base worldwide.
    >
    > Or admit they're not necessarily indicative.


    Of course they are indicative for the sample market. Do you think they
    are random numbers or what?

    --
    "What's wrong, (p)Rick? Were you defending the innocence of Hans "The
    Linux Butcher" Reiser, and now that he's about to give up the body
    you're embarrassed at being an idiot?"
    -- DFS in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  16. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Willincrease 15% to $19 Billion this year

    "Hadron" stated in post
    g5rbbt$v6m$2@registered.motzarella.org on 7/18/08 5:09 PM:

    ....
    >>>> There are stats that look at many, many websites. Linux has not, as far as
    >>>> I have seen, ever hit 1% of web hits... and Linux users are likely to be
    >>>> online more than others (more tech savvy and the like).
    >>>
    >>> Are there any stats anywhere that look at 100% of web usage and 100% of
    >>> pcs not online? I'd love to see them.
    >>>

    >> Do you understand the concept of using sample sets?

    >
    > It's amazing isn't it.
    >
    > Can you imagine this arsehole working for a company where he was asked
    > to do some market research on possible sales figures for a new product!
    > He would have to speak to every person in the world!
    >
    > I simply can not believe he is not trolling here. Surely no one can be
    > that stupid (well except for High Plains Hypocrite obviously).


    If he were a little more knowledgeable about the topic he could try to argue
    that the sample is not a randomly selected one - but that tact would fall
    flat being that Linux users are, it would seem, more likely to go online
    (being more tech savvy).


    --
    Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
    Feel free to ask for the recipe.




  17. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Willincrease 15% to $19 Billion this year

    Hadron wrote:
    > "Phil Da Lick!" writes:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>> "Phil Da Lick!" writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>>> "Phil Da Lick!" writes:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>>>>> "Phil Da Lick!" writes:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Look up last years total market and how Linux took
    >>>>>>>>>>>> the lion's share of it.
    >>>>>>>>>>> Total market share of *what*?
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Desktops? Notebooks? Mobiles? Microwave ovens? Pet rocks?
    >>>>>>>>>>> :-)
    >>>>>>>>>> That would be share of browser statistics at bbc.co.uk. Apparently
    >>>>>>>>>> thats the authoritative statistic.
    >>>>>>>>> I'm assuming you're referring to (according to a Google search):
    >>>>>>>> Well dunno, I'm not in the business of judging the entire computer
    >>>>>>>> operating system install space by the hits on one particular website
    >>>>>>>> but I'll assume for the purposes of this thread that this is the data
    >>>>>>>> that Hadron and the rest of the dummy brigade trumpet...
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/20...r_agents_1.php
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Title of your link: "The software used to access the BBC homepage"
    >>>>>>>> Subtitle "Studying the software that visits the BBC homepage". Notice
    >>>>>>>> the common thread?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> So now color me confused here.
    >>>>>>>> Easily done by the looks of it.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I repeat my statement in another thread:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> One site is not indicative of anything regardless of its location,
    >>>>>>>> traffic, political bias, charitable contributions, sensitivity to the
    >>>>>>>> force, or alignment with Jupiter on the summer solstice. Anybody who
    >>>>>>>> uses one site as a means to try to prove anything is either incredibly
    >>>>>>>> stupid or pushing an agenda.
    >>>>>>> And how many people visit and what OS they use. Christ on a bike you're
    >>>>>>> as thick as two short planks. You appear to have zero understanding of
    >>>>>>> targeted sampling.
    >>>>>> Targeted sampling proves nothing other than what you want it to
    >>>>>> prove. If it doesn't - choose another target.
    >>>>> Correct. And they were interested how many of their visitors used
    >>>>> Linux. 0.8% or so did. So if you can suggest any reason why UK Linux
    >>>>> users would not visit the BBC then please do.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> As it is, it is clear that you are either unwilling or too stupid to
    >>>>> recognise a fairly significant sample.
    >>>> "The software used to access the BBC homepage"
    >>>>
    >>>> "Studying the software that visits the BBC homepage"
    >>>>
    >>>> Fairly significant sample. From the whole internet. [ignoring the fact
    >>>> there may be millions of pcs of every variety not online].
    >>> Err yes. And you will know I pointed out why the results might even be
    >>> biased in favor of Linux.
    >>>
    >>>> ROTFLMAO!
    >>> You really are that stupid aren't you? Amazing. You are simply clueless
    >>> if you think this sample is "meaningless".
    >>>

    >> Come on Quack, you can do better than that. Stop squirming and prove
    >> beyond a shadow of a doubt that web stats from bbc.co.uk are precisely
    >> and truthfully indicative of total install base worldwide.
    >>
    >> Or admit they're not necessarily indicative.

    >
    > Of course they are indicative for the sample market. Do you think they
    > are random numbers or what?
    >


    "prove they're indicative of total worldwide market"
    "of course they're indicative for the *sample market*"

    Sheesh, how the hell did you get through school?

  18. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Willincrease 15% to $19 Billion this year

    Snit wrote:
    > "Hadron" stated in post
    > g5rbbt$v6m$2@registered.motzarella.org on 7/18/08 5:09 PM:
    >
    > ...
    >>>>> There are stats that look at many, many websites. Linux has not, as far as
    >>>>> I have seen, ever hit 1% of web hits... and Linux users are likely to be
    >>>>> online more than others (more tech savvy and the like).
    >>>> Are there any stats anywhere that look at 100% of web usage and 100% of
    >>>> pcs not online? I'd love to see them.
    >>>>
    >>> Do you understand the concept of using sample sets?

    >> It's amazing isn't it.
    >>
    >> Can you imagine this arsehole working for a company where he was asked
    >> to do some market research on possible sales figures for a new product!
    >> He would have to speak to every person in the world!
    >>
    >> I simply can not believe he is not trolling here. Surely no one can be


    I'd look up the definition of trolling if I were you "True Linux Advocate".


    >> that stupid (well except for High Plains Hypocrite obviously).

    >
    > If he were a little more knowledgeable about the topic he could try to argue
    > that the sample is not a randomly selected one - but that tact would fall
    > flat being that Linux users are, it would seem, more likely to go online
    > (being more tech savvy).



    You two dickheads just don't understand anything. But if it makes you
    feel better using a single source of data as indicative of total market
    share then go right ahead.

  19. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Willincrease 15% to $19 Billion this year

    Hadron wrote:
    > "Phil Da Lick!" writes:
    >
    >> Snit wrote:
    >>> "The Ghost In The Machine" stated in post
    >>> 31j7l5-5u6.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 7/18/08 3:45 PM:
    >>>
    >>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Phil Da Lick!
    >>>>
    >>>> wrote
    >>>> on Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:07:36 +0100
    >>>> :
    >>>>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> Look up last years total market and how Linux took
    >>>>>>>>> the lion's share of it.
    >>>>>>>> Total market share of *what*?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Desktops? Notebooks? Mobiles? Microwave ovens? Pet rocks?
    >>>>>>>> :-)
    >>>>>>> That would be share of browser statistics at bbc.co.uk. Apparently thats
    >>>>>>> the authoritative statistic.
    >>>>>> I'm assuming you're referring to (according to a Google search):
    >>>>> Well dunno, I'm not in the business of judging the entire computer
    >>>>> operating system install space by the hits on one particular website but
    >>>>> I'll assume for the purposes of this thread that this is the data that
    >>>>> Hadron and the rest of the dummy brigade trumpet...
    >>>> If it is, they need more recent data.
    >>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/20...r_agents_1.php
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Title of your link: "The software used to access the BBC homepage"
    >>>>> Subtitle "Studying the software that visits the BBC homepage". Notice
    >>>>> the common thread?
    >>>> Yes.
    >>>>
    >>>>>> So now color me confused here.
    >>>>> Easily done by the looks of it.
    >>>> Can I help it if I enter threads late? :-)
    >>>>
    >>>>> I repeat my statement in another thread:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> One site is not indicative of anything regardless of its location,
    >>>>> traffic, political bias, charitable contributions, sensitivity to the
    >>>>> force, or alignment with Jupiter on the summer solstice. Anybody who
    >>>>> uses one site as a means to try to prove anything is either incredibly
    >>>>> stupid or pushing an agenda.
    >>>> One site is a sample. One hopes it is accurate but there
    >>>> are many issues.
    >>> There are stats that look at many, many websites. Linux has not, as far as
    >>> I have seen, ever hit 1% of web hits... and Linux users are likely to be
    >>> online more than others (more tech savvy and the like).

    >> Are there any stats anywhere that look at 100% of web usage and 100%
    >> of pcs not online? I'd love to see them.
    >>

    >
    > Ye gods. You really, really are that stupid! Hilarious.
    >


    Yeah stupid enough to not use a very small sample set of data to push my
    warped agenda.

  20. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Willincrease 15% to $19 Billion this year

    Snit wrote:
    > "Phil Da Lick!" stated in post
    > RvydnTtWwJSbvhzVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet on 7/18/08 4:11 PM:
    >
    >> Snit wrote:
    >>> "The Ghost In The Machine" stated in post
    >>> 31j7l5-5u6.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 7/18/08 3:45 PM:
    >>>
    >>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Phil Da Lick!
    >>>>
    >>>> wrote
    >>>> on Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:07:36 +0100
    >>>> :
    >>>>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> Look up last years total market and how Linux took
    >>>>>>>>> the lion's share of it.
    >>>>>>>> Total market share of *what*?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Desktops? Notebooks? Mobiles? Microwave ovens? Pet rocks?
    >>>>>>>> :-)
    >>>>>>> That would be share of browser statistics at bbc.co.uk. Apparently thats
    >>>>>>> the authoritative statistic.
    >>>>>> I'm assuming you're referring to (according to a Google search):
    >>>>> Well dunno, I'm not in the business of judging the entire computer
    >>>>> operating system install space by the hits on one particular website but
    >>>>> I'll assume for the purposes of this thread that this is the data that
    >>>>> Hadron and the rest of the dummy brigade trumpet...
    >>>> If it is, they need more recent data.
    >>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/20...r_agents_1.php
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Title of your link: "The software used to access the BBC homepage"
    >>>>> Subtitle "Studying the software that visits the BBC homepage". Notice
    >>>>> the common thread?
    >>>> Yes.
    >>>>
    >>>>>> So now color me confused here.
    >>>>> Easily done by the looks of it.
    >>>> Can I help it if I enter threads late? :-)
    >>>>
    >>>>> I repeat my statement in another thread:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> One site is not indicative of anything regardless of its location,
    >>>>> traffic, political bias, charitable contributions, sensitivity to the
    >>>>> force, or alignment with Jupiter on the summer solstice. Anybody who
    >>>>> uses one site as a means to try to prove anything is either incredibly
    >>>>> stupid or pushing an agenda.
    >>>> One site is a sample. One hopes it is accurate but there
    >>>> are many issues.
    >>> There are stats that look at many, many websites. Linux has not, as far as
    >>> I have seen, ever hit 1% of web hits... and Linux users are likely to be
    >>> online more than others (more tech savvy and the like).

    >> Are there any stats anywhere that look at 100% of web usage and 100% of
    >> pcs not online? I'd love to see them.
    >>

    > Do you understand the concept of using sample sets?



    Obviously better than you do. Sample sets are inaccurate by definition.
    The wider the sample set the more towards accurate it may get, but only
    retards or agenda pushers would call one website a wide sample.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast