«

In message <>, Allistar wrote:

> Linux usage is not in decline, but the proportion of people whose
> webbrowser identifies them as running Linux is.

That claim seems to contradict the evidence, don’t you think?

On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:46:03 -0600, "impossible"
<> wrote:

>
>
>"Stephen Worthington" <_numbers> wrote in
>message news...
>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 06:29:22 -0600, "impossible"
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Stephen Worthington" <_numbers> wrote in
>>>message news:...
>>>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:02:09 -0600, "impossible"
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Allistar" <> wrote in message
>>>>>news:j7CdnRJuNpJ1nOzWnZ2dnUVZ_jpi4p2d@giganew s.com...
>>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>> news:hknv0c$oh3$...
>>>>>>>> In message <c32d9c41-61a3-400a-84fd-
>>>>>>>> >, John Little wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How does your rant explain the steady decline in linux usage?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **** happens. The bad guys often win.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since when is Linux usage declining?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Down 25% in the past year. Can't you read?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That doesn't say the the number of Linux users has dropped 25% in the
>>>>>> last
>>>>>> year.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>>Duh, percent is percent, Allistar. The number of linux users per 100
>>>>>users
>>>>>of all operating systems has declined byone-fourth in the last year.
>>>>>It's
>>>>>the standard way of measuring performance. Deal with it.
>>>>
>>>> No, you need to use English more carefully. Those statistics you are
>>>> so fond of quoting may say a 25% decrease, but in what? You said:
>>>>
>>>> "Larry D'Loserites always have some excuse for why linux usage on the
>>>> desktop is stagnant. But after trending steadily downward throughout
>>>> the past year (25% less in January 2010 then in January 2009), you'd
>>>> really have to say now that linux usage is dying a slow death."
>>>>
>>>> Any sensible reader of English would understand from that that you
>>>> were saying that the absolute numbers of Linux users had decreased,
>>>> not that the number of Linux users as a proportion of all users had
>>>> decreased. The association from the word "stagnant" does it -
>>>> "stagnant" in that context refers to numbers, not percentages or
>>>> relative numbers. That makes the in the next sentence 25% also refer
>>>> to an absolute number, not a relative one.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Stephen the Spinmeister -- always entertaining to watch you twist simple
>>>facts.
>>
>> No, you are the one who twists things. So much that I get to the
>> point where I just have to call you on it.
>>
>>>> In any case, all the statistics on that web page actually say is that,
>>>> of the web sites tracked by that organisation, 1.63% of page views
>>>> came from web browsers that identify themselves as running on Linux.
>>>> Reading anything more into the numbers such as the percentage of Linux
>>>> desktop users actually out there is junk statistics - the numbers do
>>>> not translate from one to the other. You would need someone to do a
>>>> careful peer reviewed study of how the statistical relationship
>>>> between the page views numbers and the actual desktop user numbers
>>>> worked before you could say anything more from those results.
>>>>
>>>
>>>6 other samples all agree -- in fact W3counter provides the most generous
>>>estimate of all.
>>>
>>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_desktop_operating_systems>
>>>
>>>This is a widely respoected method of estimating market share. Since no
>>>Larry D'Loserite, yourself included, has ever been able to point to an
>>>alternative site providing factual information that contradicts any of the
>>>above references, I can only interpret your intervention here as sheer
>>>FUD.
>>
>> Your own reference Wikipedia page is clearly something that you have
>> not read very well. I have just browsed it a little, but even that
>> little makes it clear you have not. How about this quote, from the
>> end of the first paragraph: "Information about operating systems share
>> is difficult to obtain. In most of the categories below, there is no
>> reliable primary source or methodology for its collection." That
>> makes it pretty clear I think. There is considerable variation in the
>> figures from different sources shown there. The page also points to
>> cautions about interpreting the figures from web hits in just the way
>> I am cautioning you. And did you check out reference [2]? Steve
>> Ballmer of Microsoft apparently thinks that Linux is a bigger
>> competitor for them than Apple:
>>
>> http://www.osnews.com/story/21035/Ba...tor_than_Apple
>>
>>>> Also, given the massive number of web sites out there, 32,451 sites
>>>> seems like a very small sample. I wonder if W3Counter is going out of
>>>> business - I would have expected them to have more sites than that.
>>>
>>>Yes, I was right. FUD it is.
>>
>> Please elucidate. In what way was what I said FUD? You are the
>> FUDder. I just said that you interpret statistics to mean far more
>> than they do. I have never said that Linux's usage is huge or that it
>> may not be in the range suggested by those web counters. It may or
>> may not be. But you just can not tell from web page counters. So
>> where is the Fear, or Uncertainty in that? Doubt, yes indeed. I take
>> great caution in interpreting any statistics. You should too.
>
>Show the evidence you have to contradict what 7 different web sites
>independently show -- that
>linuxe usage has been in steady decline for the past year. Oh, wait... you
>have none, do you? You are talking out your arse based on ideological
>conviction, not facts.
>

The whole point of my post, which you seem to have completely and
utterly missed, is that those 7 web sites show nothing of the sort.
They only show that web page accesses, by browsers identifying
themselves as Linux based, to only the web sites monitored by the
reporting sites, have decreased as a *proportion* of accesses. Nothing
much more is able to be read into those statistics. Certainly not
what you keep blathering on about.

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 06:24:58 -0600, "impossible"
<> wrote:

>
>
>"Stephen Worthington" <_numbers> wrote in
>message news:...
>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:46:03 -0600, "impossible"
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Stephen Worthington" <_numbers> wrote in
>>>message news...
>>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 06:29:22 -0600, "impossible"
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Stephen Worthington" <_numbers> wrote in
>>>>>message news:...
>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:02:09 -0600, "impossible"
>>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Allistar" <> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:j7CdnRJuNpJ1nOzWnZ2dnUVZ_jpi4p2d@gigan ews.com...
>>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>> news:hknv0c$oh3$...
>>>>>>>>>> In message <c32d9c41-61a3-400a-84fd-
>>>>>>>>>> >, John Little wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How does your rant explain the steady decline in linux usage?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> **** happens. The bad guys often win.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since when is Linux usage declining?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Down 25% in the past year. Can't you read?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That doesn't say the the number of Linux users has dropped 25% in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>> year.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Duh, percent is percent, Allistar. The number of linux users per 100
>>>>>>>users
>>>>>>>of all operating systems has declined byone-fourth in the last year.
>>>>>>>It's
>>>>>>>the standard way of measuring performance. Deal with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you need to use English more carefully. Those statistics you are
>>>>>> so fond of quoting may say a 25% decrease, but in what? You said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Larry D'Loserites always have some excuse for why linux usage on the
>>>>>> desktop is stagnant. But after trending steadily downward throughout
>>>>>> the past year (25% less in January 2010 then in January 2009), you'd
>>>>>> really have to say now that linux usage is dying a slow death."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any sensible reader of English would understand from that that you
>>>>>> were saying that the absolute numbers of Linux users had decreased,
>>>>>> not that the number of Linux users as a proportion of all users had
>>>>>> decreased. The association from the word "stagnant" does it -
>>>>>> "stagnant" in that context refers to numbers, not percentages or
>>>>>> relative numbers. That makes the in the next sentence 25% also refer
>>>>>> to an absolute number, not a relative one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Stephen the Spinmeister -- always entertaining to watch you twist simple
>>>>>facts.
>>>>
>>>> No, you are the one who twists things. So much that I get to the
>>>> point where I just have to call you on it.
>>>>
>>>>>> In any case, all the statistics on that web page actually say is that,
>>>>>> of the web sites tracked by that organisation, 1.63% of page views
>>>>>> came from web browsers that identify themselves as running on Linux.
>>>>>> Reading anything more into the numbers such as the percentage of Linux
>>>>>> desktop users actually out there is junk statistics - the numbers do
>>>>>> not translate from one to the other. You would need someone to do a
>>>>>> careful peer reviewed study of how the statistical relationship
>>>>>> between the page views numbers and the actual desktop user numbers
>>>>>> worked before you could say anything more from those results.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>6 other samples all agree -- in fact W3counter provides the most
>>>>>generous
>>>>>estimate of all.
>>>>>
>>>>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_desktop_operating_systems>
>>>>>
>>>>>This is a widely respoected method of estimating market share. Since no
>>>>>Larry D'Loserite, yourself included, has ever been able to point to an
>>>>>alternative site providing factual information that contradicts any of
>>>>>the
>>>>>above references, I can only interpret your intervention here as sheer
>>>>>FUD.
>>>>
>>>> Your own reference Wikipedia page is clearly something that you have
>>>> not read very well. I have just browsed it a little, but even that
>>>> little makes it clear you have not. How about this quote, from the
>>>> end of the first paragraph: "Information about operating systems share
>>>> is difficult to obtain. In most of the categories below, there is no
>>>> reliable primary source or methodology for its collection." That
>>>> makes it pretty clear I think. There is considerable variation in the
>>>> figures from different sources shown there. The page also points to
>>>> cautions about interpreting the figures from web hits in just the way
>>>> I am cautioning you. And did you check out reference [2]? Steve
>>>> Ballmer of Microsoft apparently thinks that Linux is a bigger
>>>> competitor for them than Apple:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.osnews.com/story/21035/Ba...tor_than_Apple
>>>>
>>>>>> Also, given the massive number of web sites out there, 32,451 sites
>>>>>> seems like a very small sample. I wonder if W3Counter is going out of
>>>>>> business - I would have expected them to have more sites than that.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, I was right. FUD it is.
>>>>
>>>> Please elucidate. In what way was what I said FUD? You are the
>>>> FUDder. I just said that you interpret statistics to mean far more
>>>> than they do. I have never said that Linux's usage is huge or that it
>>>> may not be in the range suggested by those web counters. It may or
>>>> may not be. But you just can not tell from web page counters. So
>>>> where is the Fear, or Uncertainty in that? Doubt, yes indeed. I take
>>>> great caution in interpreting any statistics. You should too.
>>>
>>>Show the evidence you have to contradict what 7 different web sites
>>>independently show -- that
>>>linuxe usage has been in steady decline for the past year. Oh, wait...
>>>you
>>>have none, do you? You are talking out your arse based on ideological
>>>conviction, not facts.
>>>
>>
>> The whole point of my post, which you seem to have completely and
>> utterly missed, is that those 7 web sites show nothing of the sort.
>> They only show that web page accesses, by browsers identifying
>> themselves as Linux based, to only the web sites monitored by the
>> reporting sites, have decreased as a *proportion* of accesses. Nothing
>> much more is able to be read into those statistics. Certainly not
>> what you keep blathering on about.
>
>Show me the evidence that 7 independent surveys are wrong. No matter how you
>try to spin this, Linux usage is declining.

Once again, you ignore what I wrote and post more blather. Clearly
you know I am right as you this is what you always seem to do when you
have no answer to someone's post - you just ignore what other people
write and repeat yourself. So, please tell me just how you get to
"Linux usage declining" from figures that do not say that. Tell me
how you get absolute numbers of browser usage at all, from those
proportional figure. Until you can be bothered to actually answer
instead of repeating blather, do not bother to reply.

On Feb 10, 1:54*pm, "impossible" <impossi...@nospam.net> wrote:
> "Allistar" <b...@c.com> wrote in message
>
> news: ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > impossible wrote:
>
> >> "Allistar" <b...@c.com> wrote in message
> >>news: om...
> >>> impossible wrote:
>
> >>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
> >>>> messagenews:hknv0c$oh3$...
> >>>>> In message <c32d9c41-61a3-400a-84fd-
> >>>>> fb12fcfee...@x1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, John Little wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> How does your rant explain the steady decline in linux usage?
>
> >>>>>> **** happens. *The bad guys often win.
>
> >>>>> Since when is Linux usage declining?
>
> >>>> <http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php>
>
> >>>> Down 25% in the past year. Can't you read?
>
> >>> That doesn't say the the number of Linux users has dropped 25% in the
> >>> last year.
> >>> --
>
> >> Duh, percent is percent, Allistar. The number of linux users per 100
> >> users
> >> of all operating systems has declined byone-fourth in the last year. It's
> >> the standard way of measuring performance. Deal with it.
>
> > You said that Linux usage has dropped by 25%.
>
> That's the evidence from this reputable site, yes
>
> <http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php>
>
> > It has not. It has most likely increased.
>
> Only in your dreams, Allistar. *Or do you have evidence to support your
> claim. No?. Didn't think so.
>
> > The percentage of total users running Linux has dropped, but
> > that doesn't mean that usage has dropped (unless the total number of users
> > has not changes, which is not the case).
>
> The linux share of total os users has been on the decline for a solid year.
> This during the world's worst recession in 80 years, when all the fanboys
> predicted that free-as-in-beer software would surely be preferred to a paid
> os like Windows or OsX. What happened Allistar? Why hasn't linux usage grown
> by at least the same rate as the population of os users? *Why can't linux
> usage hold its own?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

They are growing at the same rate as other OS they just haven't worked
out how to get on the internet yet. Just be patient!

In message <98033b2c-
fce8-4745-99d9->, Brocker wrote:

> They are growing at the same rate as other OS they just haven't worked
> out how to get on the internet yet. Just be patient!

Considering that most of them are directly dependent on the Internet for the
initial installation as well as updates, that seems a bit unlikely.

Remember, “Internet� != “Web�.

In message <hl4ln3$7c7$>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> In message <98033b2c-
> fce8-4745-99d9->, Brocker wrote:
>
>> They are growing at the same rate as other OS they just haven't worked
>> out how to get on the internet yet. Just be patient!
>
> Considering that most of them are directly dependent on the Internet for
> the initial installation as well as updates, that seems a bit unlikely.

Also I remember a report that said that 5% of the IP addresses on the
Internet had been spotted getting Linux updates.

On Feb 13, 11:45*am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message <98033b2c-
>
> fce8-4745-99d9-6f5cee81d...@u15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Brocker wrote:
> > They are growing at the same rate as other OS they just haven't worked
> > out how to get on the internet yet. Just be patient!
>
> Considering that most of them are directly dependent on the Internet for the
> initial installation as well as updates, that seems a bit unlikely.
>
> Remember, “Internet” != “Web”.

Ok I'll rephase, haven't figured out what a browser is yet.
I also suspect unlike many OS there are a lot more initial
installations. I've contributed several but only a single Windows one
in the last few years.

Brocker wrote:
> On Feb 13, 11:45 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> In message <98033b2c-
>>
>> fce8-4745-99d9-6f5cee81d...@u15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Brocker
>> wrote:
>>> They are growing at the same rate as other OS they just haven't
>>> worked out how to get on the internet yet. Just be patient!
>> Considering that most of them are directly dependent on the
>> Internet for the initial installation as well as updates, that
>> seems a bit unlikely.
>>
>> Remember, “Internet” != “Web”.
>
> Ok I'll rephase, haven't figured out what a browser is yet. I also
> suspect unlike many OS there are a lot more initial installations.
> I've contributed several but only a single Windows one in the last
> few years.
>
Browsers? I've got firefox, opera, links, wget, curl, and at a pinch I
can use the command line.

Cheers,

Cliff


--

The ends justifies the means - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

The end excuses any evil - Sophocles

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:15:58 -0600, "impossible"
<> wrote:

>
>
>"Stephen Worthington" <_numbers> wrote in
>message news:...
>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 06:24:58 -0600, "impossible"
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Stephen Worthington" <_numbers> wrote in
>>>message news:...
>>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:46:03 -0600, "impossible"
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Stephen Worthington" <_numbers> wrote in
>>>>>message news...
>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 06:29:22 -0600, "impossible"
>>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Stephen Worthington" <_numbers> wrote
>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>message news:...
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:02:09 -0600, "impossible"
>>>>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Allistar" <> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:j7CdnRJuNpJ1nOzWnZ2dnUVZ_jpi4p2d@gig anews.com...
>>>>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:hknv0c$oh3$...
>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <c32d9c41-61a3-400a-84fd-
>>>>>>>>>>>> >, John Little wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How does your rant explain the steady decline in linux usage?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> **** happens. The bad guys often win.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since when is Linux usage declining?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Down 25% in the past year. Can't you read?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't say the the number of Linux users has dropped 25% in
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>>> year.
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Duh, percent is percent, Allistar. The number of linux users per 100
>>>>>>>>>users
>>>>>>>>>of all operating systems has declined byone-fourth in the last year.
>>>>>>>>>It's
>>>>>>>>>the standard way of measuring performance. Deal with it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you need to use English more carefully. Those statistics you
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> so fond of quoting may say a 25% decrease, but in what? You said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Larry D'Loserites always have some excuse for why linux usage on
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> desktop is stagnant. But after trending steadily downward throughout
>>>>>>>> the past year (25% less in January 2010 then in January 2009), you'd
>>>>>>>> really have to say now that linux usage is dying a slow death."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any sensible reader of English would understand from that that you
>>>>>>>> were saying that the absolute numbers of Linux users had decreased,
>>>>>>>> not that the number of Linux users as a proportion of all users had
>>>>>>>> decreased. The association from the word "stagnant" does it -
>>>>>>>> "stagnant" in that context refers to numbers, not percentages or
>>>>>>>> relative numbers. That makes the in the next sentence 25% also
>>>>>>>> refer
>>>>>>>> to an absolute number, not a relative one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Stephen the Spinmeister -- always entertaining to watch you twist
>>>>>>>simple
>>>>>>>facts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you are the one who twists things. So much that I get to the
>>>>>> point where I just have to call you on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In any case, all the statistics on that web page actually say is
>>>>>>>> that,
>>>>>>>> of the web sites tracked by that organisation, 1.63% of page views
>>>>>>>> came from web browsers that identify themselves as running on Linux.
>>>>>>>> Reading anything more into the numbers such as the percentage of
>>>>>>>> Linux
>>>>>>>> desktop users actually out there is junk statistics - the numbers do
>>>>>>>> not translate from one to the other. You would need someone to do a
>>>>>>>> careful peer reviewed study of how the statistical relationship
>>>>>>>> between the page views numbers and the actual desktop user numbers
>>>>>>>> worked before you could say anything more from those results.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>6 other samples all agree -- in fact W3counter provides the most
>>>>>>>generous
>>>>>>>estimate of all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_desktop_operating_systems>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This is a widely respoected method of estimating market share. Since
>>>>>>>no
>>>>>>>Larry D'Loserite, yourself included, has ever been able to point to an
>>>>>>>alternative site providing factual information that contradicts any of
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>above references, I can only interpret your intervention here as sheer
>>>>>>>FUD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your own reference Wikipedia page is clearly something that you have
>>>>>> not read very well. I have just browsed it a little, but even that
>>>>>> little makes it clear you have not. How about this quote, from the
>>>>>> end of the first paragraph: "Information about operating systems share
>>>>>> is difficult to obtain. In most of the categories below, there is no
>>>>>> reliable primary source or methodology for its collection." That
>>>>>> makes it pretty clear I think. There is considerable variation in the
>>>>>> figures from different sources shown there. The page also points to
>>>>>> cautions about interpreting the figures from web hits in just the way
>>>>>> I am cautioning you. And did you check out reference [2]? Steve
>>>>>> Ballmer of Microsoft apparently thinks that Linux is a bigger
>>>>>> competitor for them than Apple:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.osnews.com/story/21035/Ba...tor_than_Apple
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also, given the massive number of web sites out there, 32,451 sites
>>>>>>>> seems like a very small sample. I wonder if W3Counter is going out
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> business - I would have expected them to have more sites than that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes, I was right. FUD it is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please elucidate. In what way was what I said FUD? You are the
>>>>>> FUDder. I just said that you interpret statistics to mean far more
>>>>>> than they do. I have never said that Linux's usage is huge or that it
>>>>>> may not be in the range suggested by those web counters. It may or
>>>>>> may not be. But you just can not tell from web page counters. So
>>>>>> where is the Fear, or Uncertainty in that? Doubt, yes indeed. I take
>>>>>> great caution in interpreting any statistics. You should too.
>>>>>
>>>>>Show the evidence you have to contradict what 7 different web sites
>>>>>independently show -- that
>>>>>linuxe usage has been in steady decline for the past year. Oh, wait...
>>>>>you
>>>>>have none, do you? You are talking out your arse based on ideological
>>>>>conviction, not facts.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The whole point of my post, which you seem to have completely and
>>>> utterly missed, is that those 7 web sites show nothing of the sort.
>>>> They only show that web page accesses, by browsers identifying
>>>> themselves as Linux based, to only the web sites monitored by the
>>>> reporting sites, have decreased as a *proportion* of accesses. Nothing
>>>> much more is able to be read into those statistics. Certainly not
>>>> what you keep blathering on about.
>>>
>>>Show me the evidence that 7 independent surveys are wrong. No matter how
>>>you
>>>try to spin this, Linux usage is declining.
>>
>> Once again, you ignore what I wrote and post more blather. Clearly
>> you know I am right as you this is what you always seem to do when you
>> have no answer to someone's post - you just ignore what other people
>> write and repeat yourself. So, please tell me just how you get to
>> "Linux usage declining" from figures that do not say that. Tell me
>> how you get absolute numbers of browser usage at all, from those
>> proportional figure. Until you can be bothered to actually answer
>> instead of repeating blather, do not bother to reply.
>
>Your Dumb and Dumber routine with Allistar is tiresome. Either show me the
>evidence that 7 independent surveys are wrong about the decline of linux
>usage or concede that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. As I
>stated in my OP, Linux usage has been trending steadily downward for the
>past year. Your denial of that fact borders on psychosis.

I have not accepted or denied anything about actual Linux usage.
Please re-read what I have actually posted in this thread to confirm
that. I have just pointed out that your interpretation on the web
page you so like shows no such thing. You are still not addressing
that problem at all - just repeating and repeating your blather. This
is a technique called "the big lie". It does work, I am afraid, but
not on people who do understand it.

Stephen Worthington wrote:

>
> I have not accepted or denied anything about actual Linux usage.
> Please re-read what I have actually posted in this thread to confirm
> that. I have just pointed out that your interpretation on the web
> page you so like shows no such thing. You are still not addressing
> that problem at all - just repeating and repeating your blather. This
> is a technique called "the big lie". It does work, I am afraid, but
> not on people who do understand it.

Wintroll fail