OK wrote:

> Enjoy:
>
> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/repo...qpcustom=Linux

Gee, I guess the WinTroll frothers have nothing to worry about then. When
will they be leaving comp.os.linux.advocacy?

--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"

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

> Enjoy:
>
> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/repo...qpcustom=Linux

That's not Linux, dude. It's hits from boxes claiming to be Linux boxes
that are arriving at "marketshare.hitslink.com".

Looks like Linux users don't like that site too much, probably because
jerkwads like you use it for FUD.

Looks like Mac is eating into your Windows share.

--
"I figured there was this holocaust, right, and the only ones left alive were
Donna Reed, Ozzie and Harriet, and the Cleavers."
-- Wil Wheaton explains why everyone in "Star Trek: The Next Generation"
is so nice

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

> OK wrote:
>
>> Enjoy:
>>
>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/repo...qpcustom=Linux
>
> Gee, I guess the WinTroll frothers have nothing to worry about then. When
> will they be leaving comp.os.linux.advocacy?

None of us would be visiting that site if it weren't OK waving it around.
Here's the sites they monitor:

# 76% participate in pay per click programs to drive traffic to their
sites.
# 43% are commerce sites
# 18% are corporate sites
# 10% are content sites
# 29% classify themselves as other (includes gov, org, ...)

Self-selecting sample, almost certainly biased against non-consumer
operating systems.

--
The more we disagree, the more chance there is that at least one of us is right.

"Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
news:bJ%Rk.86747$XB4.8247@bignews9.bellsouth.net.. .
> After takin' a swig o' grog, RonB belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> OK wrote:
>>
>>> Enjoy:
>>>
>>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/repo...qpcustom=Linux
>>
>> Gee, I guess the WinTroll frothers have nothing to worry about then. When
>> will they be leaving comp.os.linux.advocacy?
>
> None of us would be visiting that site if it weren't OK waving it around.
> Here's the sites they monitor:
>
> # 76% participate in pay per click programs to drive traffic to their
> sites.
> # 43% are commerce sites
> # 18% are corporate sites
> # 10% are content sites
> # 29% classify themselves as other (includes gov, org, ...)
>
> Self-selecting sample, almost certainly biased against non-consumer
> operating systems.

What exactly in this mix of sites is so self-selecting and biased against
Linux?

So 43% are commerce sites. This would include something like eBay and Amazon
for example.
18% are corporate sites. Nothing discriminatory here either.
10% are content sites. I don't see a problem ehre.
29% are other - So Linux users don't need to visit DMV.state.gov to renew
their drivers license?

If you have a *valid* reason to reject these figures then that's one thing.
But claiming that somehow these are self-selecting and anti-Linux is simply
nonsense because there's no proof to support your claim.


> --
> The more we disagree, the more chance there is that at least one of us is
> right.

Chris Ahlstrom writes:

> After takin' a swig o' grog, RonB belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> OK wrote:
>>
>>> Enjoy:
>>>
>>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/repo...qpcustom=Linux
>>
>> Gee, I guess the WinTroll frothers have nothing to worry about then. When
>> will they be leaving comp.os.linux.advocacy?
>
> None of us would be visiting that site if it weren't OK waving it around.
> Here's the sites they monitor:
>
> # 76% participate in pay per click programs to drive traffic to their
> sites.
> # 43% are commerce sites
> # 18% are corporate sites
> # 10% are content sites
> # 29% classify themselves as other (includes gov, org, ...)
>
> Self-selecting sample, almost certainly biased against non-consumer
> operating systems.

And yet you don't correct Terry Porter reporting stats from his LINUX
RESOURCE WEBSITE . More hypocrisy from Liarnut. Can you ever be
dispassionate and tell the truth?

"Ezekiel" writes:

> "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
> news:bJ%Rk.86747$XB4.8247@bignews9.bellsouth.net.. .
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, RonB belched out
>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> OK wrote:
>>>
>>>> Enjoy:
>>>>
>>>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/repo...qpcustom=Linux
>>>
>>> Gee, I guess the WinTroll frothers have nothing to worry about then. When
>>> will they be leaving comp.os.linux.advocacy?
>>
>> None of us would be visiting that site if it weren't OK waving it around.
>> Here's the sites they monitor:
>>
>> # 76% participate in pay per click programs to drive traffic to their
>> sites.
>> # 43% are commerce sites
>> # 18% are corporate sites
>> # 10% are content sites
>> # 29% classify themselves as other (includes gov, org, ...)
>>
>> Self-selecting sample, almost certainly biased against non-consumer
>> operating systems.
>
> What exactly in this mix of sites is so self-selecting and biased against
> Linux?

Nothing. COLAs biggest liar and hypocrite is earning another doggy drop
by heading his master's voice.

>
> So 43% are commerce sites. This would include something like eBay and Amazon
> for example.

Lots of Linux users looking for old HW that works there.

> 18% are corporate sites. Nothing discriminatory here either.

You mean where all the Linux desktops and servers according to Liarnut?

> 10% are content sites. I don't see a problem ehre.

There is none.

> 29% are other - So Linux users don't need to visit DMV.state.gov to renew
> their drivers license?

Do Linux users buy cars? I dont.

>
> If you have a *valid* reason to reject these figures then that's one thing.
> But claiming that somehow these are self-selecting and anti-Linux is simply
> nonsense because there's no proof to support your claim.

Chris Ahlstrom plays the "COLA company" line. When his masters say heel he
heels. It's unbelievable. It's another example of his reply containing
almost no link to the previous post.

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

>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
> news:bJ%Rk.86747$XB4.8247@bignews9.bellsouth.net.. .
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, RonB belched out
>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> OK wrote:
>>>
>>>> Enjoy:
>>>>
>>>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/repo...qpcustom=Linux
>>>
>>> Gee, I guess the WinTroll frothers have nothing to worry about then. When
>>> will they be leaving comp.os.linux.advocacy?
>>
>> None of us would be visiting that site if it weren't OK waving it around.
>> Here's the sites they monitor:
>>
>> # 76% participate in pay per click programs to drive traffic to their
>> sites.
>> # 43% are commerce sites
>> # 18% are corporate sites
>> # 10% are content sites
>> # 29% classify themselves as other (includes gov, org, ...)
>>
>> Self-selecting sample, almost certainly biased against non-consumer
>> operating systems.
>
> What exactly in this mix of sites is so self-selecting and biased against
> Linux?
>
> So 43% are commerce sites. This would include something like eBay and Amazon
> for example.

I can agree with that one.

> 18% are corporate sites. Nothing discriminatory here either.

Depends what they mean by "corporate" sites.

And if the corps themselves attract Windows customers versus "UNIX"
customers. Do they state the companies, so that you can tally which ones
are aimed at general users, versus Windows users, versus UNIXen users,
versus Mac users?

> 10% are content sites. I don't see a problem ehre.

Again, iffy, but might even out.

If the corps themselves attract Windows customers versus "UNIX"
customers. Do they state the companies, so that you can tally which ones
are aimed at general users, versus Windows users, versus UNIXen users,
versus Mac users?

> 29% are other - So Linux users don't need to visit DMV.state.gov to renew
> their drivers license?

Dumb question.

Do you know for sure that gov sites, etc., do not turn away Linux users due
to browser incompatibilities and usage of Windows-only technologies?

> If you have a *valid* reason to reject these figures then that's one thing.
> But claiming that somehow these are self-selecting and anti-Linux is simply
> nonsense because there's no proof to support your claim.

So is the opposite claim, that the sample is perfectly unbiased due to some
unspecified uniformly random set of effects.

You left out the biggest one, Zeke. The 76% that want pay-per-click to
drive the Windows users to their sites. Unless you wish to claim that all
those pay-per-click sites really care about the 1% of Linux users that
everyone just "knows" is out there, or even about the 8% of Mac users.

--
Great American Axiom:
Some is good, more is better, too much is just right.

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

>> Depends what they mean by "corporate" sites.
>>
>> And if the corps themselves attract Windows customers versus "UNIX"
>> customers. Do they state the companies, so that you can tally which ones
>> are aimed at general users, versus Windows users, versus UNIXen users,
>> versus Mac users?
>
> I'd say that most "corporate sites" don't really have anything to do with
> one OS vs another. I'm thinking of some of the "corporate sites" that I
> visited the past few days. Costco.com to find their hours, Canon.com to get
> some specs on a digital camera, Nikon.com for more camera specs,
> Phillips.com for some info on their products and Comcast.com to check my
> account setup. Unless you're talking about Redhat, Microsoft or Apple there
> probably aren't all that many "corporate sites" that I would consider as
> being biased towards one OS over another.

I would agree.

>>> 10% are content sites. I don't see a problem ehre.
>>
>> Again, iffy, but might even out.
>>
>> If the corps themselves attract Windows customers versus "UNIX"
>> customers. Do they state the companies, so that you can tally which ones
>> are aimed at general users, versus Windows users, versus UNIXen users,
>> versus Mac users?
>
> It's in the best interest of the "Corp" to attract whatever customers they
> can. I don't see why a company like BMW or Comcast would favor one OS over
> another. They're simply interested in attracting visitors and not get
> involved in some OS holy-war.

Of course not. No holy war involved at all. Nonetheless, they tend to
support only Windows (and generally Mac as well). I was on Comcast for
awhile, and, like BellSouth/AT&T now, they provide support /only/ for
Windows.

You have Linux? You're on your own.

At least most (not all, unfortunately) of AT&T's site does handle Firefox on
Linux.

> A few years ago this may have been true. How many sites are out there now
> that don't support Firefox or Linux browsers. It's been a looong time since
> I've seen one of those.

I get them here at work, for anything at all official, unfortunately.

> I never claimed perfectly unbiased. But I wouldn't throw the whole thing out
> based on some assumption that you have zero proof of. This company (who has
> the hitllinks site) collects and sells web-stats. That's their business and
> that's what pays the bills. Obviously if you're willing to pay for the
> reports you'll get the details. But how is it in their best interest to
> collect web-stats that are biased and innaccurate? Wouldn't it be better for
> their business if they had accurate numbers to sell to their customers?

It sure would. They should work on that.

>> You left out the biggest one, Zeke. The 76% that want pay-per-click to
>> drive the Windows users to their sites. Unless you wish to claim that all
>> those pay-per-click sites really care about the 1% of Linux users that
>> everyone just "knows" is out there, or even about the 8% of Mac users.
>
> Those pay-per-click sites could care less about Linux, Mac or Windows users.
> They simply want /people/, as many /people/ as possible, to come to their
> web-site. That's why these companies are willing to pay Google, Yahoo, etc.
> to put links/ads for them next to the search results. The pay-per-click site
> could be a diet-company or some place that will refinance your home or some
> place to buy airline tickets or make a hotel reservation. Why would 99% of
> these pay-per-click companies give a darn about what OS you're using to make
> a reservation at one of their hotels?

They don't. That's why it can happen that the Linux user tries the site
once, and says "bag that", and, if he comes back at all, it's on a Windows
box or VM.

If they gave a darn, they'd make sure their stuff was web-standard.

> FYI - (OT) My mega backup finally completed the other day and I did
> download/install the older gcc compiler. Setting the env-vars didn't work
> (the build/install script ignored them) so I simply pointed the sym-links
> for gcc/g++ to the older version and the stuff just built.

Wow. It's difficult for me to believe, in this day and age, that developers
hardwire the compiler name in, instead of using the $CC variable. I mean,
that's the oldest trick in the book!

--
Another greeting card category consists of those persons who send out
photographs of their families every year. In the same mail that brought the
greetings from Marcia and Philip, my friend found such a conversation piece.
"My God, Lida is enormous!" she exclaimed. I don't know why women want to
record each year, for two or three hundred people to see, the ravages wrought
upon them, their mates, and their progeny by the artillery of time, but
between five and seven per cent of Christmas cards, at a rough estimate, are
family groups, and even the most charitable recipient studies them for little
signs of dissolution or derangement. Nothing cheers a woman more, I am afraid,
than the proof that another woman is letting herself go, or has lost control
of her figure, or is clearly driving her husband crazy, or is obviously
drinking more than is good for her, or still doesn't know what to wear.
Middle-aged husbands in such photographs are often described as looking
"young enough to be her son," but they don't always escape so easily, and a
couple opening envelopes in the season of mercy and good will sometimes handle
a male friend or acquaintance rather sharply. "Good Lord!" the wife will say.
"Frank looks like a sex-crazed shotgun slayer, doesn't he?" "Not to me," the
husband may reply. "to me he looks more like a Wilkes-Barre dentist who is
being sought by the police in connection with the disappearance of a choir
singer."
-- James Thurber, "Merry Christmas"

"Ezekiel" writes:

> "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
> newsC0Sk.63719$De7.63118@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Ezekiel belched out
>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>>
>>> "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
>>> news:bJ%Rk.86747$XB4.8247@bignews9.bellsouth.net.. .
>>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, RonB belched out
>>>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>>>
>>>>> OK wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Enjoy:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/repo...qpcustom=Linux
>>>>>
>>>>> Gee, I guess the WinTroll frothers have nothing to worry about then.
>>>>> When
>>>>> will they be leaving comp.os.linux.advocacy?
>>>>
>>>> None of us would be visiting that site if it weren't OK waving it
>>>> around.
>>>> Here's the sites they monitor:
>>>>
>>>> # 76% participate in pay per click programs to drive traffic to their
>>>> sites.
>>>> # 43% are commerce sites
>>>> # 18% are corporate sites
>>>> # 10% are content sites
>>>> # 29% classify themselves as other (includes gov, org, ...)
>>>>
>>>> Self-selecting sample, almost certainly biased against non-consumer
>>>> operating systems.
>>>
>>> What exactly in this mix of sites is so self-selecting and biased against
>>> Linux?
>>>
>>> So 43% are commerce sites. This would include something like eBay and
>>> Amazon
>>> for example.
>>
>> I can agree with that one.
>>
>>> 18% are corporate sites. Nothing discriminatory here either.
>>
>> Depends what they mean by "corporate" sites.
>>
>> And if the corps themselves attract Windows customers versus "UNIX"
>> customers. Do they state the companies, so that you can tally which ones
>> are aimed at general users, versus Windows users, versus UNIXen users,
>> versus Mac users?
>
> I'd say that most "corporate sites" don't really have anything to do with
> one OS vs another.

The point is that websites are corporate or commercial or ..... and
their reports are as valid as any others for desktop usage.

Liarnut is pulling a fast one again.

Rather than accept the reality of Linux adoption he chooses to stick his
head in the sand and not read the numbers. But wait! It's ok for Terry
Porter to post silly statements about Linux adoption because of his site
hits where the site is a LINUX RESOURCE!

Only in COLA can someone hope to get away it and there are enough Shills
here to help him bury the thread and hide his stupidity.

"Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
newsC0Sk.63719$De7.63118@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Ezekiel belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>
>> "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
>> news:bJ%Rk.86747$XB4.8247@bignews9.bellsouth.net.. .
>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, RonB belched out
>>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>>
>>>> OK wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Enjoy:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/repo...qpcustom=Linux
>>>>
>>>> Gee, I guess the WinTroll frothers have nothing to worry about then.
>>>> When
>>>> will they be leaving comp.os.linux.advocacy?
>>>
>>> None of us would be visiting that site if it weren't OK waving it
>>> around.
>>> Here's the sites they monitor:
>>>
>>> # 76% participate in pay per click programs to drive traffic to their
>>> sites.
>>> # 43% are commerce sites
>>> # 18% are corporate sites
>>> # 10% are content sites
>>> # 29% classify themselves as other (includes gov, org, ...)
>>>
>>> Self-selecting sample, almost certainly biased against non-consumer
>>> operating systems.
>>
>> What exactly in this mix of sites is so self-selecting and biased against
>> Linux?
>>
>> So 43% are commerce sites. This would include something like eBay and
>> Amazon
>> for example.
>
> I can agree with that one.
>
>> 18% are corporate sites. Nothing discriminatory here either.
>
> Depends what they mean by "corporate" sites.
>
> And if the corps themselves attract Windows customers versus "UNIX"
> customers. Do they state the companies, so that you can tally which ones
> are aimed at general users, versus Windows users, versus UNIXen users,
> versus Mac users?
>
>> 10% are content sites. I don't see a problem ehre.
>
> Again, iffy, but might even out.
>
> If the corps themselves attract Windows customers versus "UNIX"
> customers. Do they state the companies, so that you can tally which ones
> are aimed at general users, versus Windows users, versus UNIXen users,
> versus Mac users?
>
>> 29% are other - So Linux users don't need to visit DMV.state.gov to renew
>> their drivers license?
>
> Dumb question.
>
> Do you know for sure that gov sites, etc., do not turn away Linux users
> due
> to browser incompatibilities and usage of Windows-only technologies?
>
>> If you have a *valid* reason to reject these figures then that's one
>> thing.
>> But claiming that somehow these are self-selecting and anti-Linux is
>> simply
>> nonsense because there's no proof to support your claim.
>
> So is the opposite claim, that the sample is perfectly unbiased due to
> some
> unspecified uniformly random set of effects.
>
> You left out the biggest one, Zeke. The 76% that want pay-per-click to
> drive the Windows users to their sites. Unless you wish to claim that all
> those pay-per-click sites really care about the 1% of Linux users that
> everyone just "knows" is out there, or even about the 8% of Mac users.
>
That seems kind of silly. Your premise is that a site that, say, pays
Google for some clicks doesn't care about Linux or Mac Users?

You are not going to get a scientific sample for free. You jamokes all want
everything for free. However, what you get here are statistics for net
surfers as reported by sites that sign up to report hits. Naturally they
are interested in the demographics since they are in some way, shape, or
form interested in influencing the surfers. That pretty much includes all
sites, else why have a public access site in the first place.

You are just miffed that Linux users are not showing up to vote. Like
Republicans last week.

On Nov 10, 12:15*pm, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, OK belched out
> * this bit o' wisdom:
>
> > Enjoy:
>
> >http://marketshare.hitslink.com/repo...qpcustom=Linux
>
> That's not Linux, dude. *It's hits from boxes claiming to be Linux boxes
> that are arriving at "marketshare.hitslink.com".
>
> Looks like Linux users don't like that site too much, probably because
> jerkwads like you use it for FUD.
>
> Looks like Mac is eating into your Windows share.
>
> --
> "I figured there was this holocaust, right, and the only ones left alive were
> *Donna Reed, Ozzie and Harriet, and the Cleavers."
> -- Wil Wheaton explains why everyone in "Star Trek: The Next Generation"
> * * is so nice

Mac definately is.. I'd buy one my self if they weren't so dang
expensive. I went to buy a laptop a year or so ago, and it looked
pretty reasonable at first glance... But, by the time I added a
larger hard drive and an extra gig of ram the damn thing was like $4K.

And truth be told, I have like 6 macs in the house All of them
except one, are old iMacs running OS9 - my kids play with them all the
time. The other is running the original Mac OSX. I hardly ever use
it though... I've thought it might make a good gentoo box though

--
Tom Shelton

On 2008-11-10, OK was urged to write the following:
> Enjoy:
>
> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/repo...qpcustom=Linux

Damn, Linux has near to 1% market share? That's too mainstream for me.
It's about time I finally migrate to BSD then...

~ Tommy
--
There's nothing more exhilarating than pointing out the
shortcomings of others, is there?
~ Randal Graves