"flatfish+++" <flatfish@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:_x15h.206$Dz6.5@newsfe10.lga...
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=140
>
> This reads like it came right out of COLA!!
>
> (Note the 1 percent desktop user base figure.)

Oh dear - it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to estimate Linux desktop usage...as you
well know.

> "But hardware support on Linux is good - all my stuff works!
>
> If all your hardware works, great. Congratulations. But ask yourself
> these two questions:
>
> * How much extra effort did you have to go to to get it to work?
> * Did you research your purchase in advance to make sure that it would
> work?

Research yes, you actually should do that with Windows as well.....(many
posts in the Windows newsgroups about this or that device won't work....)
extra effort, none at all. In fact with Live CDs you can check BEFORE you
install the OS, not like windows where you install, and THEN you find it
doesn't work......


>
> If you answered "yes" to either of these questions then you are willing to
> go to more effort than the average home buyer looking for a new printer,
> scanner or video card. Your average buyer isn't even willing to do enough
> research to make sure that they get the lowest price (that's how stores
> that charge over the odds stay in business). Is this the kind of person
> who's going to check to see if there's Linux support for what they want?"
>
>
> and.........................
>
> " Poor hardware/software/games support is not a Linux issue
>
> True. It's a developer issue. But developers (and the folks who pay
> their wages) are following the money, and at present there's not a lot of
> money to be made from the Linux market.
>
> Another reason that hardware support is patchy is that manufacturers don't
> want their code secrets going open source - it's easier for a business to
> deal with another business than it is to deal with the open source
> community."
>
>
>
> and.................................
>
> " Linux is more secure than Windows
>
> Yes, but . do you think that the average user who runs executable
> attachments sent to them by email or who consents to the installation of
> adware or spyware on their machines would really be safer on Linux?

Oh yes of course - when I double-click on an "exe" file in my email on Linux
it immediately installs a virus. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Flatfish - exe files don't WORK in Linux. Of COURSE Linux is safer.


>
> At present there's a bar of technical competence that users wanting to
> make use of Linux have to be able to clear. This alone makes them
> unlikely to be the kind of people who do things that put their systems at
> risk. Security is not about software, it's mostly about education."
>
>
>
> and........so much more.........
>
> Read it and decide for yourself.
>
> I expect total and complete denial, discrediting the author and the usual
> grade school tactics used by the COLA gang to save Linux from bad press.
>
>
>
>
>

"Gordon" <gordon.burgessparker******.com.invalid> writes:

> "flatfish+++" <flatfish@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
> news:_x15h.206$Dz6.5@newsfe10.lga...
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=140
>>
>> This reads like it came right out of COLA!!
>>
>> (Note the 1 percent desktop user base figure.)
>
> Oh dear - it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to estimate Linux desktop usage...as you
> well know.

Actually its quite easy for those of us in the IT business.

Estimate that is. To get a full figure is, of course, more difficult.

"Gordon" <gordon.burgessparker******.com.invalid> writes:

> "flatfish+++" <flatfish@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
> news:_x15h.206$Dz6.5@newsfe10.lga...
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=140
>>
>> This reads like it came right out of COLA!!
>>
>> (Note the 1 percent desktop user base figure.)
>
> Oh dear - it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to estimate Linux desktop usage...as you
> well know.

Actually its quite easy for those of us in the IT business.

Estimate that is. To get a full figure is, of course, more difficult.

"Hadron Quark" <qadronhuark@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:87d57uhw3x.fsf@geemail.com...
> "Gordon" <gordon.burgessparker******.com.invalid> writes:
>
>> "flatfish+++" <flatfish@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
>> news:_x15h.206$Dz6.5@newsfe10.lga...
>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=140
>>>
>>> This reads like it came right out of COLA!!
>>>
>>> (Note the 1 percent desktop user base figure.)
>>
>> Oh dear - it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to estimate Linux desktop usage...as you
>> well know.
>
> Actually its quite easy for those of us in the IT business.
>
> Estimate that is. To get a full figure is, of course, more difficult.

Even an estimate is impossible. For example - I have here in my home three
machines. One desktop, and two laptops. The Desktop came with XP Pro
pre-installed, one laptop with w98 and one with no OS at all (ex-lease).
Now, I've downloaded probably nine or ten different distros in the last 5
years - at the moment my desktop has a dual-boot XP and SLED 10, one laptop
has XP currently installed, with a spare HDD with Kubuntu on it, which I
switch about on a random basis, and the laptop that came with no OS
currently has W2K on it.

How do you think, that if my setup is reasonably common, anyone can even
estimate how many instances of Linux are in use in private setups? In MY
case the instance of Linux on the desktop is anything between 25% and 33%
depending on what I do.

"Hadron Quark" <qadronhuark@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:87d57uhw3x.fsf@geemail.com...
> "Gordon" <gordon.burgessparker******.com.invalid> writes:
>
>> "flatfish+++" <flatfish@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
>> news:_x15h.206$Dz6.5@newsfe10.lga...
>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=140
>>>
>>> This reads like it came right out of COLA!!
>>>
>>> (Note the 1 percent desktop user base figure.)
>>
>> Oh dear - it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to estimate Linux desktop usage...as you
>> well know.
>
> Actually its quite easy for those of us in the IT business.
>
> Estimate that is. To get a full figure is, of course, more difficult.

Even an estimate is impossible. For example - I have here in my home three
machines. One desktop, and two laptops. The Desktop came with XP Pro
pre-installed, one laptop with w98 and one with no OS at all (ex-lease).
Now, I've downloaded probably nine or ten different distros in the last 5
years - at the moment my desktop has a dual-boot XP and SLED 10, one laptop
has XP currently installed, with a spare HDD with Kubuntu on it, which I
switch about on a random basis, and the laptop that came with no OS
currently has W2K on it.

How do you think, that if my setup is reasonably common, anyone can even
estimate how many instances of Linux are in use in private setups? In MY
case the instance of Linux on the desktop is anything between 25% and 33%
depending on what I do.