Re: UBUNTU = Waste of time - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Re: UBUNTU = Waste of time - Ubuntu ; On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 19:11:52 -0400, noshellswill wrote: > ... that explains the 0.87% desktop penetration of Linux. Not even a > statistical fluctuation. Source? If that is a typo of Net Applications' September figure of 0.81% based on ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Re: UBUNTU = Waste of time

  1. Re: UBUNTU = Waste of time

    On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 19:11:52 -0400, noshellswill wrote:

    > ... that explains the 0.87% desktop penetration of Linux. Not even a
    > statistical fluctuation.


    Source?

    If that is a typo of Net Applications' September figure of 0.81% based on
    website traffic monitoring, their data is remarkably inconsistent over
    time and I'd question the kind of sites they are monitoring. I very much
    doubt Linux desktop use has doubled since January:
    http://marketshare.hitslink.com/repo...qpcustom=Linux

    W3schools may have more technically minded visitors but at least their
    data is consistent:
    http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp



    --


    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  2. Re: UBUNTU = Waste of time

    On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:43:17 -0300, Snowbat wrote:

    > On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 19:11:52 -0400, noshellswill wrote:
    >
    >> ... that explains the 0.87% desktop penetration of Linux. Not even a
    >> statistical fluctuation.

    >
    > Source?
    >
    > If that is a typo of Net Applications' September figure of 0.81% based on
    > website traffic monitoring, their data is remarkably inconsistent over
    > time and I'd question the kind of sites they are monitoring. I very much
    > doubt Linux desktop use has doubled since January:
    > http://marketshare.hitslink.com/repo...qpcustom=Linux
    >
    > W3schools may have more technically minded visitors but at least their
    > data is consistent:
    > http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    >


    They know the figures for 2007 while it is still 2007. When did they
    count those figures, how do they get them, then I saw at the bottom of the
    page -
    "W3Schools provides material for training only. We do not warrant
    the correctness of its contents. The risk from using it lies entirely with
    the user. While using this site, you agree to have read and accepted our
    terms of use and privacy policy."

    --
    Dave

+ Reply to Thread