[News] [Rival] Vista at 4% in Businesses After Almost 2 years - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] [Rival] Vista at 4% in Businesses After Almost 2 years - Linux ; After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out this bit o' wisdom: > The same way they manage to count Windows installs that don't access > the services they monitor for purposes of revenue...they don't. You mean to say ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 69

Thread: [News] [Rival] Vista at 4% in Businesses After Almost 2 years

  1. Re: Vista at 4% in Businesses After Almost 2 years

    After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > The same way they manage to count Windows installs that don't access
    > the services they monitor for purposes of revenue...they don't.


    You mean to say you think there are no solid market numbers available
    for a product distributed /only/ through retail channels?

    Or do you consider Windows so bad that people "pirate" rather than pay?

    > Percentages are not totals. Nothing precludes one OS or another from
    > visiting or not visiting...


    Bull****.

    http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...ng-linux-users

    http://www.linux.com/feature/119197

    Linux to get the boot at US Army Corps of Engineers?

    And let's not even go to businesses that basically mandate Windows, so
    that all your hits all day come from Windows boxes, even if you use
    Linux at home.

    > , so it doesn't matter.


    Yeah, right. Hi ho Silverlight, Tonto.

    --
    Nasrudin walked into a teahouse and declaimed, "The moon is more useful
    than the sun."
    "Why?", he was asked.
    "Because at night we need the light more."

  2. Re: [News] [Rival] Vista at 4% in Businesses After Almost 2 years

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS

    wrote
    on Tue, 7 Oct 2008 10:00:32 -0400
    :
    > High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >>> Found an hour ago:
    >>>
    >>> "For, example, according to this report, there are now 12 million
    >>> users in Brazil, representing fully 25% of the entire office market
    >>> there. "
    >>>
    >>> http://www.computerworlduk.com/commu...1369&blogid=14

    >>
    >> As I stated previously

    >
    > You can state what you want, but you have no evidence at all for your
    > statements.
    >
    >
    >
    >> and to the chagrin of the Wintrolls, Linux has
    >> a greater presence outside US borders.

    >
    > Prove it. And what does OpenOffice have to do with Linux?


    OpenOffice is a very popular solution that runs on
    Linux-based distros -- *and on Windows*.

    However, the above statement is wrong anyway; Microsoft
    Windows dominantes EU desktops as well. (Otherwise, why
    would the EUC make such a fuss over Windows Media Player?)

    Mobile smartunits show a more interesting picture; Symbian is
    clearly dominant worldwide (*except* in North America,
    where RIM and Microsoft are battling it out) but Linux
    places a nice second in the Japanese and Pacific Rim;
    Microsoft and Apple are nearly nonexistent.

    Microsoft-based mobiles are very prominent in North America
    (and *only* in North America, as it turns out), and a
    solid second place in Europe; Microsoft and Linux are
    roughly tied for second place in the rest of the world.
    This is as of last year.

    http://vowe.net/archives/008814.html
    or
    http://gigaom.com/2007/09/07/symbian-vs-apple-google/

    We'll see.

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >> Linux is lighter weight and by
    >> properly selecting the right kernel, can optimally run on much lighter
    >> hardware than Vista. Considering cash flow issues with poorer
    >> countries and cash strapped companies and governments, lighter
    >> hardware is a cost savings in addition to software costs.
    >>
    >> There is only so much yarn that can be spun with FUD.

    >


    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Windows Vista. Because a BSOD is just so 20th century; why not
    try our new color changing variant?
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  3. Re: Vista at 4% in Businesses After Almost 2 years

    On Oct 8, 8:51*am, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
    > * this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    > > The same way they manage to count Windows installs that don't access
    > > the services they monitor for purposes of revenue...they don't.

    >
    > You mean to say you think there are no solid market numbers available
    > for a product distributed /only/ through retail channels?
    >
    > Or do you consider Windows so bad that people "pirate" rather than pay?


    I meant what I said, the computers not being counted are going to have
    the same OS percentage wise as the computers being counted. It has
    nothing to do with piracy.

    > > Percentages are not totals. Nothing precludes one OS or another from
    > > visiting or not visiting...

    >
    > Bull****.
    >
    > * *http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...citibank-conti...



    Is Citibank part of that market survey? Part of the statistics
    gathered at the BBC website?


    > * *http://www.linux.com/feature/119197
    >
    > * *Linux to get the boot at US Army Corps of Engineers?


    This falls into the same category as below.

    > And let's not even go to businesses that basically mandate Windows, so
    > that all your hits all day come from Windows boxes, even if you use
    > Linux at home.



    When you go home do you not browse to websites? Do you not browse to a
    much more diverse group of websites than allowed at work? I think for
    most people the answer is yes, but this may not be the case for you.
    So you have a Windows box at work that may or may not be counted
    depending on what websites your allowed to visit, and you have a Linux
    box at home that may or may not be counted, depending on what sites
    you actually visit (out of all possible sites). So you have a chance
    that both boxes will be counted, which is correct. There's a bigger
    chance that your Windows work box won't be counted because most
    employers block certain websites, and you not exactly browsing around
    all day at work. But realistically, that's probably not the case. So
    both computers have the same chance of being counted, so what exactly
    is the problem? The fact that you wouldn't use Windows if you weren't
    employed? I fail to see how this would skew the results in Windows
    favor. If you weren't there, someone else would be using the Windows
    machine. And if you switch to a job that allows you to use Linux
    you're either taking someone else's job, in which case the number
    stays the same, or going into a newly created job, in which case the
    Linux box didn't exist before, and now it does, being correctly
    counted. And for business that mandate Windows, it doesn't sound like
    there are Linux boxes sitting next to the Windows boxes, only they
    can't be touched. It sounds exactly like you put it, businesses
    forcing users to use only Windows. So where are all these hidden Linux
    boxes that are not being counted?

    If you want to say that if businesses forcing Windows on people takes
    away opportunities for Linux, then I can't argue. But it doesn't
    change the statistics. They aren't measuring what Linux usage *should*
    be at, they are measuring what Linux usage *is* at. 2% of males would
    like to be female, but were born male. That doesn't mean that there
    are 52% females in the world.


  4. Re: Vista at 4% in Businesses After Almost 2 years

    After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > When you go home do you not browse to websites? Do you not browse to a
    > much more diverse group of websites than allowed at work? I think for
    > most people the answer is yes, but this may not be the case for you.


    Indeed, it is not.

    I actually browse more at work, even when I'm doing some highly
    interesting code. I have a somewhat short attention span.

    But I browse exclusively from Linux at work.

    > So you have a Windows box at work that may or may not be counted
    > depending on what websites your allowed to visit, and you have a Linux
    > box at home that may or may not be counted, depending on what sites
    > you actually visit (out of all possible sites). So you have a chance
    > that both boxes will be counted, which is correct. There's a bigger
    > chance that your Windows work box won't be counted because most
    > employers block certain websites, and you not exactly browsing around
    > all day at work. But realistically, that's probably not the case. So
    > both computers have the same chance of being counted, so what exactly
    > is the problem? The fact that you wouldn't use Windows if you weren't
    > employed? I fail to see how this would skew the results in Windows
    > favor.


    It's rather simple, really. 8 hours at work, peppered with Web access.
    A couple hours at home, maybe a higher concentration of web access,
    unless you're a gamer.

    And a lot of people I know at work figure they use their computer enough
    at work.

    > If you weren't there, someone else would be using the Windows
    > machine. And if you switch to a job that allows you to use Linux
    > you're either taking someone else's job, in which case the number
    > stays the same, or going into a newly created job, in which case the
    > Linux box didn't exist before, and now it does, being correctly
    > counted. And for business that mandate Windows, it doesn't sound like
    > there are Linux boxes sitting next to the Windows boxes, only they
    > can't be touched. It sounds exactly like you put it, businesses
    > forcing users to use only Windows. So where are all these hidden Linux
    > boxes that are not being counted?




    > If you want to say that if businesses forcing Windows on people takes
    > away opportunities for Linux, then I can't argue. But it doesn't
    > change the statistics. They aren't measuring what Linux usage *should*
    > be at, they are measuring what Linux usage *is* at. 2% of males would
    > like to be female, but were born male. That doesn't mean that there
    > are 52% females in the world.


    Unfortunately, cc, web stats are highly manipulable.

    Go Daddy!

    --
    Higgins: Doolittle, you're either an honest man or a rogue.
    Doolittle: A little of both, Guv'nor. Like the rest of us, a
    little of both.
    -- Shaw, "Pygmalion"

  5. Re: Vista at 4% in Businesses After Almost 2 years

    On Oct 9, 8:01*am, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
    > * this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    > > When you go home do you not browse to websites? Do you not browse to a
    > > much more diverse group of websites than allowed at work? I think for
    > > most people the answer is yes, but this may not be the case for you.

    >
    > Indeed, it is not.
    >
    > I actually browse more at work, even when I'm doing some highly
    > interesting code. *I have a somewhat short attention span.
    >
    > But I browse exclusively from Linux at work.
    >
    > > So you have a Windows box at work that may or may not be counted
    > > depending on what websites your allowed to visit, and you have a Linux
    > > box at home that may or may not be counted, depending on what sites
    > > you actually visit (out of all possible sites). So you have a chance
    > > that both boxes will be counted, which is correct. There's a bigger
    > > chance that your Windows work box won't be counted because most
    > > employers block certain websites, and you not exactly browsing around
    > > all day at work. But realistically, that's probably not the case. So
    > > both computers have the same chance of being counted, so what exactly
    > > is the problem? The fact that you wouldn't use Windows if you weren't
    > > employed? I fail to see how this would skew the results in Windows
    > > favor.

    >
    > It's rather simple, really. *8 hours at work, peppered with Web access.
    > A couple hours at home, maybe a higher concentration of web access,
    > unless you're a gamer.



    8 hours at work peppered with web access to a select few sites skews
    the results more than a higher concentration from home?

    > And a lot of people I know at work figure they use their computer enough
    > at work.


    So they've never browsed from home at all?


    > > If you weren't there, someone else would be using the Windows
    > > machine. And if you switch to a job that allows you to use Linux
    > > you're either taking someone else's job, in which case the number
    > > stays the same, or going into a newly created job, in which case the
    > > Linux box didn't exist before, and now it does, being correctly
    > > counted. And for business that mandate Windows, it doesn't sound like
    > > there are Linux boxes sitting next to the Windows boxes, only they
    > > can't be touched. It sounds exactly like you put it, businesses
    > > forcing users to use only Windows. So where are all these hidden Linux
    > > boxes that are not being counted?

    >
    >



    Don't know? Sure there are hidden Linux boxes, just like there are
    hidden Windows boxes. Please demonstrate how Linux boxes are more
    likely to be not counted.


    > > If you want to say that if businesses forcing Windows on people takes
    > > away opportunities for Linux, then I can't argue. But it doesn't
    > > change the statistics. They aren't measuring what Linux usage *should*
    > > be at, they are measuring what Linux usage *is* at. 2% of males would
    > > like to be female, but were born male. That doesn't mean that there
    > > are 52% females in the world.

    >
    > Unfortunately, cc, web stats are highly manipulable.
    >
    > Go Daddy!
    >


    How? Replacing servers can be highly manipulable, but how are these
    web stats being skewed towards Windows? Even you have guessed a
    percentage close to what web stats are saying:

    http://groups.google.com/group/comp....n&dmode=source

    "My /guess/ would range from 1% to 3% for /consumers/ only."

    So I have to ask: If web stats say somewhere between 1-5%, and you
    give a similar range based on experience, why do you feel these web
    stats are being manipulated? If you feel like your estimation is
    wrong, then I'd like to hear an updated one. Because from what I see,
    you agree with me, you agree with the web stats, but you feel the need
    to argue it and toe the company line. Isn't it kind of amazing how
    there are so many uncounted Linux boxes in my estimations and web
    stats estimations, but with all your knowledge of these uncounted
    boxes, you come up with the same approximation?

  6. Re: Vista at 4% in Businesses After Almost 2 years

    After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > On Oct 9, 8:01*am, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >
    > http://groups.google.com/group/comp....n&dmode=source
    >
    > "My /guess/ would range from 1% to 3% for /consumers/ only."
    >
    > So I have to ask: If web stats say somewhere between 1-5%, and you
    > give a similar range based on experience, why do you feel these web
    > stats are being manipulated? If you feel like your estimation is
    > wrong, then I'd like to hear an updated one. Because from what I see,
    > you agree with me, you agree with the web stats, but you feel the need
    > to argue it and toe the company line. Isn't it kind of amazing how
    > there are so many uncounted Linux boxes in my estimations and web
    > stats estimations, but with all your knowledge of these uncounted
    > boxes, you come up with the same approximation?


    It's easy, cc. I'm surprised you don't understand. Not everybody uses
    HTTP to the same degree as other protocols.

    Linux is still more of a techy OS, so you can't assume the same browsing
    habits as Windows or Mac users.

    Finally, the usage of robots just skews everything.

    We've been over all this before.

    Even the stats you want to use are all over the place.

    That's why I use the word guess. I could be dead wrong. Linux could be
    twice as prevalent as I guess it is amongst consumers.

    Amongst technical people Linux is /rampant/. However, I would not dare
    try to assign that kind of fuzzy number.

    If you wish more certainty, you might find comfort in religion.

    --
    Santa Claus is watching!

  7. Re: Vista at 4% in Businesses After Almost 2 years

    On Oct 9, 8:24*pm, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
    > * this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    > > On Oct 9, 8:01*am, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

    >
    > >http://groups.google.com/group/comp....sg/542ce61d0d0...

    >
    > > "My /guess/ would range from 1% to 3% for /consumers/ only."

    >
    > > So I have to ask: If web stats say somewhere between 1-5%, and you
    > > give a similar range based on experience, why do you feel these web
    > > stats are being manipulated? If you feel like your estimation is
    > > wrong, then I'd like to hear an updated one. Because from what I see,
    > > you agree with me, you agree with the web stats, but you feel the need
    > > to argue it and toe the company line. Isn't it kind of amazing how
    > > there are so many uncounted Linux boxes in my estimations and web
    > > stats estimations, but with all your knowledge of these uncounted
    > > boxes, you come up with the same approximation?

    >
    > It's easy, cc. *I'm surprised you don't understand. *Not everybody uses
    > HTTP to the same degree as other protocols.
    >
    > Linux is still more of a techy OS, so you can't assume the same browsing
    > habits as Windows or Mac users.


    Linux users aren't predisposed to less web browsing than Windows or
    Mac users. That's ridiculous. Do Linux users use different protocols
    more often? Well, I think that's preposterous as well, but either way
    it has no meaning in this discussion.


    > Finally, the usage of robots just skews everything.


    And robots aren't counted.

    > We've been over all this before.
    >
    > Even the stats you want to use are all over the place.


    Such as? I'll grant you that the difference between 1% of users and 5%
    of users is a **** ton of Linux boxes, but that's only because of the
    huge numbers in play here.


    > That's why I use the word guess. *I could be dead wrong. *Linux couldbe
    > twice as prevalent as I guess it is amongst consumers.


    Which would be shocking wouldn't it? I mean that's why you made the
    guess you made.


    > Amongst technical people Linux is /rampant/. *However, I would not dare
    > try to assign that kind of fuzzy number.


    Of course it's rampant. How do you think the percentages of a free OS,
    with little to no marketing, passed on by word of mouth, and developed
    by a community on their own time, got up to 1-5% in the first place?

    > If you wish more certainty, you might find comfort in religion.
    >


    I have no need of more certainty or religion.

  8. Re: Vista at 4% in Businesses After Almost 2 years

    After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > I have no need of more certainty or religion.


    Then why are you trying to pin down numbers that can't be pinned down?

    --
    After they got rid of capital punishment, they had to hang twice
    as many people as before.

  9. Re: Vista at 4% in Businesses After Almost 2 years

    On Oct 9, 9:01*pm, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
    > * this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    > > I have no need of more certainty or religion.

    >
    > Then why are you trying to pin down numbers that can't be pinned down?
    >


    I thought we established that I had pinned them down.

  10. Re: Vista at 4% in Businesses After Almost 2 years

    After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > On Oct 9, 9:01*pm, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
    >> * this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >> > I have no need of more certainty or religion.

    >>
    >> Then why are you trying to pin down numbers that can't be pinned down?

    >
    > I thought we established that I had pinned them down.


    You thought wrong.

    --
    The full impact of parenthood doesn't hit you until you multiply the
    number of your kids by thirty-two teeth.

  11. Re: Vista at 4% in Businesses After Almost 2 years

    cc writes:

    > On Oct 9, 9:01*pm, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
    >> * this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >> > I have no need of more certainty or religion.

    >>
    >> Then why are you trying to pin down numbers that can't be pinned down?
    >>

    >
    > I thought we established that I had pinned them down.


    Well, you and every stat sample out there. For some reason Liarmutt
    seems unable to work out that Linux users don't hide from these samples
    or that the people who collect the data are not interested in telling
    lies.

    --
    "I program Windows systems yes. But I am not a Windows user."
    Peter Koehlmann, COLA.

  12. Re: Vista at 4% in Businesses After Almost 2 years

    On Oct 9, 9:30*pm, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
    > * this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    > > On Oct 9, 9:01*pm, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    > >> After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
    > >> * this bit o' wisdom:

    >
    > >> > I have no need of more certainty or religion.

    >
    > >> Then why are you trying to pin down numbers that can't be pinned down?

    >
    > > I thought we established that I had pinned them down.

    >
    > You thought wrong.
    >


    Well the way you refused to answer questions had me fooled or provide
    any argument against my points had me fooled.

  13. Re: Vista at 4% in Businesses After Almost 2 years

    After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > On Oct 9, 9:30*pm, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
    >> * this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >> > On Oct 9, 9:01*pm, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >> >> After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
    >> >> * this bit o' wisdom:

    >>
    >> >> > I have no need of more certainty or religion.

    >>
    >> >> Then why are you trying to pin down numbers that can't be pinned down?

    >>
    >> > I thought we established that I had pinned them down.

    >>
    >> You thought wrong.

    >
    > Well the way you refused to answer questions had me fooled or provide
    > any argument against my points had me fooled.


    I'll assume you're being obtuse deliberately.

    Show me a number, a standard-deviation, and your
    justification for "pinning it down" (which should include proof you
    used an unbiased sampling method).

    --
    Solver_: add users who should be messing with sound to group
    audio.. Make sure the devices are all group audio (ls -l
    /dev/dsp will give you the fastest indication if it's probably
    set right) and build a kernel with sound support for your card
    OR optionally install alsa source and build modules for that
    with make-kpkg
    OR (not recommended) get and install evil OSS/Linux evil
    non-free evil binary only evil drivers---but those are evil.
    And did I mention that it's not recommended?

  14. Re: Vista at 4% in Businesses After Almost 2 years

    On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 18:56:36 -0700 (PDT), cc wrote:

    > On Oct 9, 9:30*pm, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
    >> * this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> On Oct 9, 9:01*pm, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
    >>>> * this bit o' wisdom:

    >>
    >>>> > I have no need of more certainty or religion.

    >>
    >>>> Then why are you trying to pin down numbers that can't be pinned down?

    >>
    >>> I thought we established that I had pinned them down.

    >>
    >> You thought wrong.
    >>

    >
    > Well the way you refused to answer questions had me fooled or provide
    > any argument against my points had me fooled.


    LiarMutt is dancing again.

    Get ready for him to kill file you and then start trying to rewrite history
    by bragging about how he won the discussion.

    It's classic LiarMutt.

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

  15. Re: Vista at 4% in Businesses After Almost 2 years

    On Oct 9, 10:13*pm, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
    > * this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Oct 9, 9:30*pm, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    > >> After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
    > >> * this bit o' wisdom:

    >
    > >> > On Oct 9, 9:01*pm, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    > >> >> After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
    > >> >> * this bit o' wisdom:

    >
    > >> >> > I have no need of more certainty or religion.

    >
    > >> >> Then why are you trying to pin down numbers that can't be pinned down?

    >
    > >> > I thought we established that I had pinned them down.

    >
    > >> You thought wrong.

    >
    > > Well the way you refused to answer questions had me fooled or provide
    > > any argument against my points had me fooled.

    >
    > I'll assume you're being obtuse deliberately.
    >
    > Show me a number, a standard-deviation, and your
    > justification for "pinning it down" (which should include proof you
    > used an unbiased sampling method).
    >


    I've showed you a number and I've given you my justification for
    pinning it down, which included proof that it used an unbiased
    sampling method. The fact that you didn't respond to any of it doesn't
    mean it wasn't there.

    http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php

    We'll call it 2% to make things easy. They used 53,232,929 samples,
    with 10 choices. So the standard deviation for that many samples with
    that many choices is 730 users. 2.57 * 730 is 1876.1, which means 99
    times out of 100, the survey will be 1876.1 users off of the mean for
    a particular OS.

    So Linux usage is 2% +/- .0035% which is accurate 99% of the time.

  16. Re: Vista at 4% in Businesses After Almost 2 years

    After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > I've showed you a number and I've given you my justification for
    > pinning it down, which included proof that it used an unbiased
    > sampling method. The fact that you didn't respond to any of it doesn't
    > mean it wasn't there.
    >
    > http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php
    >
    > We'll call it 2% to make things easy. They used 53,232,929 samples,
    > with 10 choices. So the standard deviation for that many samples with
    > that many choices is 730 users. 2.57 * 730 is 1876.1, which means 99
    > times out of 100, the survey will be 1876.1 users off of the mean for
    > a particular OS.
    >
    > So Linux usage is 2% +/- .0035% which is accurate 99% of the time.


    Idiot. You haven't listened to a thing I said.

    --
    The programmers of old were mysterious and profound. We cannot fathom
    their thoughts, so all we do is describe their appearance.
    Aware, like a fox crossing the water. Alert, like a general on the
    battlefield. Kind, like a hostess greeting her guests. Simple, like uncarved
    blocks of wood. Opaque, like black pools in darkened caves.
    Who can tell the secrets of their hearts and minds?
    The answer exists only in the Tao.
    -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"

  17. Re: Vista at 4% in Businesses After Almost 2 years

    Chris Ahlstrom writes:

    > After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> On Oct 9, 9:30*pm, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >>> After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
    >>> * this bit o' wisdom:
    >>>
    >>> > On Oct 9, 9:01*pm, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >>> >> After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
    >>> >> * this bit o' wisdom:
    >>>
    >>> >> > I have no need of more certainty or religion.
    >>>
    >>> >> Then why are you trying to pin down numbers that can't be pinned down?
    >>>
    >>> > I thought we established that I had pinned them down.
    >>>
    >>> You thought wrong.

    >>
    >> Well the way you refused to answer questions had me fooled or provide
    >> any argument against my points had me fooled.

    >
    > I'll assume you're being obtuse deliberately.
    >
    > Show me a number, a standard-deviation, and your
    > justification for "pinning it down" (which should include proof you
    > used an unbiased sampling method).


    Your stupidity is quite shocking on this one. Standard deviation? Say
    what?!?!? He has shown you bone fide numbers from sites which have no
    interest in lying.

    All YOU can do is whinge and simper about how many %'s of Linux users
    change their browser ID string (they dont) or dont browse using the
    "http protocol ! *Guffaw*.

    The % of the world's PC Desktops is well below 5% and you know it. A
    shame I know, but well, Linux for the desktop was garbage until a short
    while ago with modern HW not supported properly and an "RTFM" attitude
    which scared new adopters away. People like Shuttleworth have changed
    all that. Hell, even though there are still some dinosaurs in the Debian
    crowd even that has become a lot easier with HUGE improvements to the
    installer. You know. The installer that you and your COLA mates would
    assure people "just works" only a couple of years ago. Well it didnt
    "just work" and that's why people shied away from Linux.


    --
    "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

  18. Re: Vista at 4% in Businesses After Almost 2 years

    On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:16:48 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > Chris Ahlstrom writes:
    >
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
    >> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> On Oct 9, 9:30*pm, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
    >>>> * this bit o' wisdom:
    >>>>
    >>>> > On Oct 9, 9:01*pm, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >>>> >> After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
    >>>> >> * this bit o' wisdom:
    >>>>
    >>>> >> > I have no need of more certainty or religion.
    >>>>
    >>>> >> Then why are you trying to pin down numbers that can't be pinned down?
    >>>>
    >>>> > I thought we established that I had pinned them down.
    >>>>
    >>>> You thought wrong.
    >>>
    >>> Well the way you refused to answer questions had me fooled or provide
    >>> any argument against my points had me fooled.

    >>
    >> I'll assume you're being obtuse deliberately.
    >>
    >> Show me a number, a standard-deviation, and your
    >> justification for "pinning it down" (which should include proof you
    >> used an unbiased sampling method).

    >
    > Your stupidity is quite shocking on this one. Standard deviation? Say
    > what?!?!? He has shown you bone fide numbers from sites which have no
    > interest in lying.


    When you can't offer a decent rebuttle, discredit the user, data or method.
    See the current USA presidential election for details.
    It's right out of the Linux loons play book.

    > All YOU can do is whinge and simper about how many %'s of Linux users
    > change their browser ID string (they dont) or dont browse using the
    > "http protocol ! *Guffaw*.


    They have been using that sidestep for years.
    While it was somewhat true in the past, the number of sites that don't
    work, even back then, was few and far between.


    > The % of the world's PC Desktops is well below 5% and you know it. A
    > shame I know, but well, Linux for the desktop was garbage until a short
    > while ago with modern HW not supported properly and an "RTFM" attitude
    > which scared new adopters away. People like Shuttleworth have changed
    > all that. Hell, even though there are still some dinosaurs in the Debian
    > crowd even that has become a lot easier with HUGE improvements to the
    > installer. You know. The installer that you and your COLA mates would
    > assure people "just works" only a couple of years ago. Well it didnt
    > "just work" and that's why people shied away from Linux.


    Another Linux mantra.
    It just works.

    These radical Linux boobs were claiming fonts looked good, sound worked,
    scanners worked, video cards worked etc from day one even when it was
    obvious that the term worked had an entirely different meaning for them.

    Little things like acceleration not working, the control panels not
    working, the highest resolutions not working, printers special functions
    like ink monitoring etc not working, sound that could only play one sound
    at a time without confusing configuration files that needed to be hand
    coded, .asoundrc for example and so forth.

    They LIE for LIEnix.

    And LiarMutt is one of the worst offenders.


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

  19. Re: Vista at 4% in Businesses After Almost 2 years

    On Oct 10, 7:11*am, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
    > * this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    > > I've showed you a number and I've given you my justification for
    > > pinning it down, which included proof that it used an unbiased
    > > sampling method. The fact that you didn't respond to any of it doesn't
    > > mean it wasn't there.

    >
    > >http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php

    >
    > > We'll call it 2% to make things easy. They used 53,232,929 samples,
    > > with 10 choices. So the standard deviation for that many samples with
    > > that many choices is 730 users. 2.57 * 730 is 1876.1, which means 99
    > > times out of 100, the survey will be 1876.1 users off of the mean for
    > > a particular OS.

    >
    > > So Linux usage is 2% +/- .0035% which is accurate 99% of the time.

    >
    > Idiot. *You haven't listened to a thing I said.
    >


    I responded to every silly thing you wrote, which is more than I can
    say of you. If you feel that I am wrong or have mislead in what I
    presented, please educate me. I'm not try to be facetious, I just
    haven't seen anything from you refuting anything.

  20. Re: Vista at 4% in Businesses After Almost 2 years

    After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > On Oct 10, 7:11*am, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
    >> * this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >> > I've showed you a number and I've given you my justification for
    >> > pinning it down, which included proof that it used an unbiased
    >> > sampling method. The fact that you didn't respond to any of it doesn't
    >> > mean it wasn't there.

    >>
    >> >http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php

    >>
    >> > We'll call it 2% to make things easy. They used 53,232,929 samples,
    >> > with 10 choices. So the standard deviation for that many samples with
    >> > that many choices is 730 users. 2.57 * 730 is 1876.1, which means 99
    >> > times out of 100, the survey will be 1876.1 users off of the mean for
    >> > a particular OS.

    >>
    >> > So Linux usage is 2% +/- .0035% which is accurate 99% of the time.

    >>
    >> Idiot. *You haven't listened to a thing I said.

    >
    > I responded to every silly thing you wrote, which is more than I can
    > say of you. If you feel that I am wrong or have mislead in what I
    > presented, please educate me. I'm not try to be facetious, I just
    > haven't seen anything from you refuting anything.


    Just one thing. Your w3counter numbers above are indeed a valid and
    precise sample for w3counter. It is highly likely that another such
    sample taken a day later would show the same number to within a small
    deviation.

    But you have not dealt with, at all, the subject of site bias.

    That is why you see numbers all over the place, ranging from OneStat,
    which still claims a 95% share for all Windows and a 0.4% share for
    Linux, to w3schools, which shows 92% for Windows and 4% for Linux.

    That's an order of magnitude right there. That may be good enough for
    cosmology, but not for measuring "market share" among consumers.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_s...rating_systems

    The information is derived from web browser user agent strings,
    rather than sales information or surveys. This is not entirely
    reliable because:

    * web browsers do not always provide accurate information to web
    servers.
    * the sites reporting may be specific to a particular
    operating system.
    * many computers are blocked from browsing to some
    classes of sites by firewalls or filters
    * some computers are not connected to the Internet
    * some computers run more than one operating
    system simultaneously (virtualization) or at
    different times (multiple booting)
    * the methodology (lists of sites, determination of operating
    system, counting sessions, unique visitors, page hits, or
    site hits) may be unrepresentative of the universe of
    computers
    * one computer may be counted multiple times, others not
    counted
    * clients using one OS may be running a session on
    another computer using a different OS

    It's not even clear that doing a weighted average of all surveys would
    remove bias.

    And that's just for HTTP.

    What about FTP, torrent, gnutella, SSH, even rsync? And what about
    people who simply use Linux as a home server?

    Linux is dark matter. We know it is there, there's too much radiation
    emanating from it. But we don't know how much is being absorbed by the
    visible matter.

    --
    MOUNT TAPE U1439 ON B3, NO RING

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