On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 01:44:08 -0400, DFS wrote:

> "51. Since application developers working under an open-source model are not
> looking to recoup their investment and make a profit by selling copies of
> their finished products, they are free from the imperative that compels
> proprietary developers to concentrate their efforts on Windows. In theory,
> then, open-source developers are at least as likely to develop applications
> for a non-Microsoft operating system as they are to write Windows-compatible
> applications. In fact, they may be disposed ideologically to focus their
> efforts on open-source platforms like Linux. Fortunately for Microsoft,
> however, there are only so many developers in the world willing to devote
> their talents to writing, testing, and debugging software pro bono publico.
> A small corps may be willing to concentrate its efforts on popular
> applications, such as browsers and office productivity applications, that
> are of value to most users. It is unlikely, though, that a sufficient number
> of open-source developers will commit to developing and continually updating
> the large variety of applications that an operating system would need to
> attract in order to present a significant number of users with a viable
> alternative to Windows. In practice, then, the open- source model of
> applications development may increase the base of applications that run on
> non- Microsoft PC operating systems, but it cannot dissolve the barrier that
> prevents such operating systems from challenging Windows."
>
> http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f38...udgex.htm#iiib

The linux model is completely flawed.

After 15+ plus years, the desktop still sits at a pathetic 0.6 percent
desptie being free.

That is pathetic and proof enough that Linux needs to figure out why people
seem to dislike it so much that they would rather pay for a Mac than use
free Linux on the hardware they already have.

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

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:50:08 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

The only thing pathetically flawed, is your argument. Crawl back under
your bridge troll.

bob wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:50:08 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>
> The only thing pathetically flawed, is your argument. Crawl back under
> your bridge troll.

He kinda lost the argument by saying linux had captured 0.6% of the desktop,
huh. Probably it's below 0.2% don'tcha think.

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:05:53 -0700, Damian wrote:

> bob wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:50:08 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>
>> The only thing pathetically flawed, is your argument. Crawl back under
>> your bridge troll.
>
> He kinda lost the argument by saying linux had captured 0.6% of the
> desktop, huh. Probably it's below 0.2% don'tcha think.

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

1.95%:
<http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php>

3.7%:
<http://w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp>

These are all based on web statistics as opposed to units sold.

--
Rick

Rick wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:05:53 -0700, Damian wrote:
>
>> bob wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:50:08 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>
>>> The only thing pathetically flawed, is your argument. Crawl back
>>> under your bridge troll.
>>
>> He kinda lost the argument by saying linux had captured 0.6% of the
>> desktop, huh. Probably it's below 0.2% don'tcha think.
>
> .8%:
> <http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8>
>
> 1.95%:
> <http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php>
>
> 3.7%:
> <http://w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp>
>
> These are all based on web statistics as opposed to units sold.

Are those "Must Click On This Link Daily" links posted on every linux site
in the world? That's about the only way linux would ever see 1% of the
desktop.

Rick wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:05:53 -0700, Damian wrote:
>
>> bob wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:50:08 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>
>>> The only thing pathetically flawed, is your argument. Crawl back under
>>> your bridge troll.
>> He kinda lost the argument by saying linux had captured 0.6% of the
>> desktop, huh. Probably it's below 0.2% don'tcha think.
>
> .8%:
> <http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8>
>
> 1.95%:
> <http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php>
>
> 3.7%:
> <http://w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp>
>
> These are all based on web statistics as opposed to units sold.
>

These statistics don't really work for me. We all know the poor
reliability of web-based statistics.

Units sold is a poor calculation, too. How many Linux users take the
computer they just bought and slap Linux on it? Or just build it from
scratch themselves.

There's no real reliable way of getting a view of the OS market, but...
I guess web statistics like that are the closest we can get to reliable.

PS: The current state of the OS market doesn't mean it will always be
that way.

"Damian" <nospam@rabid-dog.net> writes:

> Rick wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:05:53 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>
>>> bob wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:50:08 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The only thing pathetically flawed, is your argument. Crawl back
>>>> under your bridge troll.
>>>
>>> He kinda lost the argument by saying linux had captured 0.6% of the
>>> desktop, huh. Probably it's below 0.2% don'tcha think.
>>
>> .8%:
>> <http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8>
>>
>> 1.95%:
>> <http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php>
>>
>> 3.7%:
>> <http://w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp>
>>
>> These are all based on web statistics as opposed to units sold.
>
> Are those "Must Click On This Link Daily" links posted on every linux site
> in the world? That's about the only way linux would ever see 1% of the
> desktop.
>

I think they are broadly accurate. A higher % of Linux users are
technical and this likely to visit the w3 sites. The 0.8% roughly ties
in with an OS agnostic site like the BBC although my own estimate would
be lower from what I see out here in the wild

Ben <beno1990******.com> writes:

> Rick wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:05:53 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>
>>> bob wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:50:08 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The only thing pathetically flawed, is your argument. Crawl back under
>>>> your bridge troll.
>>> He kinda lost the argument by saying linux had captured 0.6% of the
>>> desktop, huh. Probably it's below 0.2% don'tcha think.
>>
>> .8%:
>> <http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8>
>>
>> 1.95%:
>> <http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php>
>>
>> 3.7%:
>> <http://w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp>
>>
>> These are all based on web statistics as opposed to units sold.
>>
>
> These statistics don't really work for me. We all know the poor
> reliability of web-based statistics.

Do we? They report what is used to visit the site. I dont see how they
are poor.

>
> Units sold is a poor calculation, too. How many Linux users take the
> computer they just bought and slap Linux on it? Or just build it from
> scratch themselves.

About all of them since most of COLA keep telling us MS has a market
place monopoly.

>
> There's no real reliable way of getting a view of the OS market,
> but... I guess web statistics like that are the closest we can get to
> reliable.

Err, yes.

>
> PS: The current state of the OS market doesn't mean it will always be
> that way.

Really? Wow. You can share in the "stating the obvious" prize fund with
Thufir and Rick.

--
"At BT Global, our crown jewels are the services we supply to our
customers. With jNetX we own the intellectual property for our
services, allowing us to evolve the services as and when required."
Mark Kent,Head of Technology Strategy,COLA Hypocrite

"Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> stated in post
g60blt$gu9$1@registered.motzarella.org on 7/20/08 2:45 PM:

> "Damian" <nospam@rabid-dog.net> writes:
>
>> Rick wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:05:53 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>
>>>> bob wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:50:08 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The only thing pathetically flawed, is your argument. Crawl back
>>>>> under your bridge troll.
>>>>
>>>> He kinda lost the argument by saying linux had captured 0.6% of the
>>>> desktop, huh. Probably it's below 0.2% don'tcha think.
>>>
>>> .8%:
>>> <http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8>
>>>
>>> 1.95%:
>>> <http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php>
>>>
>>> 3.7%:
>>> <http://w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp>
>>>
>>> These are all based on web statistics as opposed to units sold.
>>
>> Are those "Must Click On This Link Daily" links posted on every linux site
>> in the world? That's about the only way linux would ever see 1% of the
>> desktop.
>>
>
> I think they are broadly accurate. A higher % of Linux users are
> technical and this likely to visit the w3 sites. The 0.8% roughly ties
> in with an OS agnostic site like the BBC although my own estimate would
> be lower from what I see out here in the wild

Makes sense - but at least now I have seen stats that put Linux over 1%,
even if not very dependable (for the reasons you listed).



--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson

Hadron wrote:
> Ben <beno1990******.com> writes:
>
>> Rick wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:05:53 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>
>>>> bob wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:50:08 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The only thing pathetically flawed, is your argument. Crawl back under
>>>>> your bridge troll.
>>>> He kinda lost the argument by saying linux had captured 0.6% of the
>>>> desktop, huh. Probably it's below 0.2% don'tcha think.
>>> .8%:
>>> <http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8>
>>>
>>> 1.95%:
>>> <http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php>
>>>
>>> 3.7%:
>>> <http://w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp>
>>>
>>> These are all based on web statistics as opposed to units sold.
>>>
>> These statistics don't really work for me. We all know the poor
>> reliability of web-based statistics.
>
> Do we? They report what is used to visit the site. I dont see how they
> are poor.
>
>> Units sold is a poor calculation, too. How many Linux users take the
>> computer they just bought and slap Linux on it? Or just build it from
>> scratch themselves.
>
> About all of them since most of COLA keep telling us MS has a market
> place monopoly.
>
>> There's no real reliable way of getting a view of the OS market,
>> but... I guess web statistics like that are the closest we can get to
>> reliable.
>
> Err, yes.
>
>> PS: The current state of the OS market doesn't mean it will always be
>> that way.
>
> Really? Wow. You can share in the "stating the obvious" prize fund with
> Thufir and Rick.
>

The PS was aimed as a response to the thread title, by the way.

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:05:53 -0700, Damian wrote:

> bob wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:50:08 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>
>> The only thing pathetically flawed, is your argument. Crawl back under
>> your bridge troll.
>
> He kinda lost the argument by saying linux had captured 0.6% of the desktop,
> huh. Probably it's below 0.2% don'tcha think.

Yea, practically I would say it's around 0.1 percent.
I was being generous to Linux though.

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

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:45:30 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> "Damian" <nospam@rabid-dog.net> writes:
>
>> Rick wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:05:53 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>
>>>> bob wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:50:08 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The only thing pathetically flawed, is your argument. Crawl back
>>>>> under your bridge troll.
>>>>
>>>> He kinda lost the argument by saying linux had captured 0.6% of the
>>>> desktop, huh. Probably it's below 0.2% don'tcha think.
>>>
>>> .8%:
>>> <http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8>
>>>
>>> 1.95%:
>>> <http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php>
>>>
>>> 3.7%:
>>> <http://w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp>
>>>
>>> These are all based on web statistics as opposed to units sold.
>>
>> Are those "Must Click On This Link Daily" links posted on every linux site
>> in the world? That's about the only way linux would ever see 1% of the
>> desktop.
>>
>
> I think they are broadly accurate. A higher % of Linux users are
> technical and this likely to visit the w3 sites. The 0.8% roughly ties
> in with an OS agnostic site like the BBC although my own estimate would
> be lower from what I see out here in the wild

Same here....

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

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:39:00 -0700, Damian wrote:

> Rick wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:05:53 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>
>>> bob wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:50:08 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The only thing pathetically flawed, is your argument. Crawl back
>>>> under your bridge troll.
>>>
>>> He kinda lost the argument by saying linux had captured 0.6% of the
>>> desktop, huh. Probably it's below 0.2% don'tcha think.
>>
>> .8%:
>> <http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8>
>>
>> 1.95%:
>> <http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php>
>>
>> 3.7%:
>> <http://w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp>
>>
>> These are all based on web statistics as opposed to units sold.
>
> Are those "Must Click On This Link Daily" links posted on every linux
> site in the world? That's about the only way linux would ever see 1% of
> the desktop.

I see you didn't actually read the references.



--
Rick

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:20:19 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:45:30 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> "Damian" <nospam@rabid-dog.net> writes:
>>
>>> Rick wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:05:53 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> bob wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:50:08 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only thing pathetically flawed, is your argument. Crawl back
>>>>>> under your bridge troll.
>>>>>
>>>>> He kinda lost the argument by saying linux had captured 0.6% of the
>>>>> desktop, huh. Probably it's below 0.2% don'tcha think.
>>>>
>>>> .8%:
>>>> <http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8>
>>>>
>>>> 1.95%:
>>>> <http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php>
>>>>
>>>> 3.7%:
>>>> <http://w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp>
>>>>
>>>> These are all based on web statistics as opposed to units sold.
>>>
>>> Are those "Must Click On This Link Daily" links posted on every linux
>>> site in the world? That's about the only way linux would ever see 1%
>>> of the desktop.
>>>
>>>
>> I think they are broadly accurate. A higher % of Linux users are
>> technical and this likely to visit the w3 sites. The 0.8% roughly ties
>> in with an OS agnostic site like the BBC although my own estimate would
>> be lower from what I see out here in the wild
>
> Same here....

Of course, that's why you keep repeating your .6% drivel even when given
other references.

--
Rick

"Rick" <none@nomail.com> stated in post
NtKdnWpmu6Hmex7VnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@supernews.com on 7/20/08 6:29 PM:

> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:20:19 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:45:30 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> "Damian" <nospam@rabid-dog.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:05:53 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> bob wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:50:08 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only thing pathetically flawed, is your argument. Crawl back
>>>>>>> under your bridge troll.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He kinda lost the argument by saying linux had captured 0.6% of the
>>>>>> desktop, huh. Probably it's below 0.2% don'tcha think.
>>>>>
>>>>> .8%:
>>>>> <http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.95%:
>>>>> <http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3.7%:
>>>>> <http://w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp>
>>>>>
>>>>> These are all based on web statistics as opposed to units sold.
>>>>
>>>> Are those "Must Click On This Link Daily" links posted on every linux
>>>> site in the world? That's about the only way linux would ever see 1%
>>>> of the desktop.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I think they are broadly accurate. A higher % of Linux users are
>>> technical and this likely to visit the w3 sites. The 0.8% roughly ties
>>> in with an OS agnostic site like the BBC although my own estimate would
>>> be lower from what I see out here in the wild
>>
>> Same here....
>
> Of course, that's why you keep repeating your .6% drivel even when given
> other references.

0.8% seems more likely... though Linux is likely over represented on the
web... so maybe 0.6% or so actual usage.


--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?