Discussion:
Vista: a paradox-- if Microsoft is really serious about counterfeits and viruses, then why this?
(too old to reply)
raylopez99
2008-02-10 09:20:26 UTC
Permalink
Microsoft claims they are concerned for potential users of Vista (or
XP) about the effects of counterfeit copies of Vista and viruses,
trojans, etc that may be loaded onto such counterfeit copies.

If this is true, then why doesn't Microsoft insist that a clean
reininstall of Windows Vista or XP be done if a counterfeit copy is
detected? Instead, Microsoft merely asks a user of a counterfeit copy
that a Genuine Windows key be bought. No virus check is done, nor is
a clean reinstall performed. In fact, after you buy a Genuine Windows
key, no backup copy of Windows is sent on a DVD/CD unless you pay
extra. So even if a user wants to do a clean reinstall, they cannot.
And if you read the fine print on a EULA they post, it says that MSFT
is not responsible if, even with a Genuine Windows XP key, your system
is infected by a virus and you have to rebuy another key later (so
some lawyer at least has thought of this problem).

Anybody notice this paradox? Seems MSFT is only concerned with your
money after all, not your security.

BTW I running Vista Ultimate right now on a $3 copy I bought in Asia.
I'm not sure, maybe it's the shoddy packaging, maybe it's the low
price, but something tells me it might not be a genuine copy. But no
matter, so far, and I've avoided the SP1, it's working fine and I
don't notice any obvious trojans or viruses.

RL
7
2008-02-10 11:01:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by raylopez99
Microsoft claims they are concerned for potential users of Vista (or
XP) about the effects of counterfeit copies of Vista and viruses,
trojans, etc that may be loaded onto such counterfeit copies.
If this is true, then why doesn't Microsoft insist that a clean
reininstall of Windows Vista or XP be done if a counterfeit copy is
detected? Instead, Microsoft merely asks a user of a counterfeit copy
that a Genuine Windows key be bought.
Thats because it is important to Micoshaft that you (a windummy) buy
more windummy licenses (not software). Licenses cost nothing but software
costs loads of money (about 20 cents + pp + admin) - which is several
thousand percentage more expensive than just giving you nothin
and laughing all the way to the bank.

Hope that helps you decide to get Linux instead.

http://www.livecdlist.com

Free to download, copy and distribute as often and on as many
PCs as you need. It comes with source code so you can modify
and incorporate into products as often as you want and sell
without having to negotiate complex licensing agreements
and spending money wastefully with micoshaft and its satellite
companies. 1 million+ Linux desktops get installed per month
and Linux sells 3 million embedded Linux products PER DAY.
More reasons to get on the free Linux bandwagon.
Post by raylopez99
No virus check is done, nor is
a clean reinstall performed. In fact, after you buy a Genuine Windows
key, no backup copy of Windows is sent on a DVD/CD unless you pay
extra. So even if a user wants to do a clean reinstall, they cannot.
And if you read the fine print on a EULA they post, it says that MSFT
is not responsible if, even with a Genuine Windows XP key, your system
is infected by a virus and you have to rebuy another key later (so
some lawyer at least has thought of this problem).
Anybody notice this paradox? Seems MSFT is only concerned with your
money after all, not your security.
BTW I running Vista Ultimate right now on a $3 copy I bought in Asia.
I'm not sure, maybe it's the shoddy packaging, maybe it's the low
price, but something tells me it might not be a genuine copy. But no
matter, so far, and I've avoided the SP1, it's working fine and I
don't notice any obvious trojans or viruses.
RL
NG
2008-02-10 11:44:13 UTC
Permalink
<snipped>

You are a clown, and the person who made the original post is a clown in
addition to you being a clown.
DFS
2008-02-10 14:06:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by 7
1 million+ Linux desktops get installed per month
And 1 million+ get uninstalled per month.
Post by 7
and Linux sells 3 million embedded Linux products PER DAY.
Last week it was 1 million, today it's 3 million, next month it's 8
million...

Like you said before, "who cares if the numbers are accurate?"
Post by 7
More reasons to get on the free Linux bandwagon.
uh oh.... now everyone should use Linux because [you ridiculously think] a
lot of people are adopting it.

cuckoo! cuckoo!
Rick
2008-02-10 14:58:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by 7
1 million+ Linux desktops get installed per month
And 1 million+ get uninstalled per month.
That is 1 million= net gain in Linux installations..
Post by DFS
Post by 7
and Linux sells 3 million embedded Linux products PER DAY.
Last week it was 1 million, today it's 3 million, next month it's 8
million...
Like you said before, "who cares if the numbers are accurate?"
... depends on the references.
Post by DFS
Post by 7
More reasons to get on the free Linux bandwagon.
uh oh.... now everyone should use Linux because [you ridiculously think]
a lot of people are adopting it.
! million+ is not a lot?
Post by DFS
cuckoo! cuckoo!
Yes, you are.
--
Rick
Snit
2008-02-10 15:19:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick
Post by DFS
Post by 7
1 million+ Linux desktops get installed per month
And 1 million+ get uninstalled per month.
That is 1 million= net gain in Linux installations..
Where did you get that idea?

It is clear that in the one area where Linus cares about - the desk top -
Linux is still at less than one percent *user base*.

It does do better - significantly so - in other markets.
--
When thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy.
When God changes your mind, that's faith.
When facts change your mind, that's science.
t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
2008-02-10 18:24:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by 7
1 million+ Linux desktops get installed per month
And 1 million+ get uninstalled per month.
Not according to the published stats. They show Linux desktop use
on the rise.
Post by DFS
Post by 7
More reasons to get on the free Linux bandwagon.
uh oh.... now everyone should use Linux because [you ridiculously think] a
lot of people are adopting it.
cuckoo! cuckoo!
The 1 million new desktops per month estimate might be a bit high but
probably not by much.

Using hitslink.com (which the wintrolls themselves love to reference)
we see an average monthly increase better than 0.05% over the last three
months. Going by the generally accepted figure of 1.2 billion PCs in
the world, that puts the monthly growth of desktop Linux at better
600,000. That is using the most conservative numbers I could find.
Other sites show Linux numbers at twice what hitslink does, so it
could even be more than 1 million per month. It certainly is within
that order of magnitude, and there is absolutely no doubt that it is
increasing, not decreasing.

Thad
--
Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
all the ingredients on the label.
Snit
2008-02-10 18:56:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
Post by DFS
Post by 7
1 million+ Linux desktops get installed per month
And 1 million+ get uninstalled per month.
Not according to the published stats. They show Linux desktop use
on the rise.
The sources I have seen say from 0.8% to as low as 0.7 or even a bit less.
Not exactly stellar stats.
Post by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
Post by DFS
Post by 7
More reasons to get on the free Linux bandwagon.
uh oh.... now everyone should use Linux because [you ridiculously think] a
lot of people are adopting it.
cuckoo! cuckoo!
The 1 million new desktops per month estimate might be a bit high but
probably not by much.
Using hitslink.com (which the wintrolls themselves love to reference)
we see an average monthly increase better than 0.05% over the last three
months. Going by the generally accepted figure of 1.2 billion PCs in
the world, that puts the monthly growth of desktop Linux at better
600,000. That is using the most conservative numbers I could find.
Other sites show Linux numbers at twice what hitslink does, so it
could even be more than 1 million per month. It certainly is within
that order of magnitude, and there is absolutely no doubt that it is
increasing, not decreasing.
Thad
--
The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.
DFS
2008-02-10 19:33:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
Post by DFS
Post by 7
1 million+ Linux desktops get installed per month
And 1 million+ get uninstalled per month.
Not according to the published stats. They show Linux desktop use
on the rise.
What published stats are you referring to?

They're flat for the last 3 years here:
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

And essentially flat here:
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8&qpmr=100&qpdt=1&qpct=3&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=96&qpnp=12

Linux hits (hundredths of 1 percent)
2006
-------
Feb: 31
Mar 32
Apr 46
May 40
Jun 38
Jul 44
Aug 47
Sep 40
Oct 39
Nov 37
Dec 37

2007
-----
Jan: 35
Feb 42
Mar 40
Apr 41
May 43
Jun 43
Jul 46
Aug 47
Sep 49
Oct 50
Nov 57
Dec 63

2008
------
Jan: 67

Using your 1.2B figure, the data at hitslink shows a total increase over the
last two years of ~4.32M (or 180,000 per month).
Post by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
Post by DFS
Post by 7
More reasons to get on the free Linux bandwagon.
uh oh.... now everyone should use Linux because [you ridiculously
think] a lot of people are adopting it.
cuckoo! cuckoo!
The 1 million new desktops per month estimate might be a bit high but
probably not by much.
It's patently absurd, like most everything flowing from 7's piehole.
Post by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
Using hitslink.com (which the wintrolls themselves love to reference)
we see an average monthly increase better than 0.05% over the last
three months. Going by the generally accepted figure of 1.2 billion
PCs in the world, that puts the monthly growth of desktop Linux at
better 600,000. That is using the most conservative numbers I could
find. Other sites show Linux numbers at twice what hitslink does, so
it
could even be more than 1 million per month. It certainly is within
that order of magnitude, and there is absolutely no doubt that it is
increasing, not decreasing.
It's basically flat over the last 3 years. If you graph it you can barely
see a rise.

Regardless, you're in a better position than I to see Linux desktops. How
many new/increasing desktops do you see on your Linux consulting gigs?
7
2008-02-10 19:49:25 UTC
Permalink
Micoshaft sackable Asstroturfer DFS who can't set q factor in a jpeg
compression routine but claims to be employable earning oodles of money
Post by DFS
Post by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
Post by DFS
Post by 7
1 million+ Linux desktops get installed per month
And 1 million+ get uninstalled per month.
Not according to the published stats. They show Linux desktop use
on the rise.
What published stats are you referring to?
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
You will of course now prove that this is an approved method
for counting Linux uptake.
DFS
2008-02-10 23:35:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by 7
Micoshaft sackable Asstroturfer DFS who can't set q factor in a jpeg
compression routine
There are a dozen flags I could but didn't use with ImageMagick convert.
Depends on your definition of 'oodles'. One thing's for sure: you could
never afford to double it like you were squeaking.
Post by 7
Post by DFS
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
You will of course now prove that this is an approved method
for counting Linux uptake.
There is no approved method, wackjob.
7
2008-02-11 03:57:20 UTC
Permalink
Micoshaft asstrotufer DFS fraudulently wrote one behalf of Micoshaft
Post by DFS
Post by 7
Micoshaft sackable Asstroturfer DFS who can't set q factor in a jpeg
compression routine
There are a dozen flags I could but didn't use with ImageMagick convert.
Depends on your definition of 'oodles'. One thing's for sure: you could
never afford to double it like you were squeaking.
Your half wit is half right.
I can't afford to employ a halfwit like you who doesn't
know anything about q factor in jpeg compression
and then goes around saying it looks same in *screen* resolution.

*Screen* resolution dumbo?!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!
Post by DFS
Post by 7
Post by DFS
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
You will of course now prove that this is an approved method
for counting Linux uptake.
There is no approved method, wackjob.
BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHHAAAA!!!!
Then your lies are toast dumb fsck!!!


Why not count press releases? At least its
independently verifiable.
Don't give me none of that excel based malarky where you can't
add and substract properly.
Use Open Office Calc for your spreadsheet and count
press releases properly adding and subtracting gains
and losses equally.
DFS
2008-02-11 05:42:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by 7
Your half wit is half right.
I can't afford to employ a halfwit like you who doesn't
know anything about q factor in jpeg compression
You can't afford to employ anyone to do anything, little guy, so get over
the absurd claims. You're a wannabe Linux hacker who barely scrapes by
using Windows.
Post by 7
and then goes around saying it looks same in *screen* resolution.
*Screen* resolution dumbo?!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!
Not sure what you're trying to say (English is definitely not your first
language), but they look absolutely identical to me, on my screen
(1024x768).

If I show you 20 pairs of .jpg photos, all resized from 2816x2112 to
1024x768, one ImageMagick converted with -quality of 100 and the other
ImageMagick converted at -quality of 85 (the default), and you can't pick
out the -q100 photo 20 out of 20 times by viewing it with your naked eyes on
an LCD computer screen at resolution of 1024x768, do you agree to pay me
twice my 2007 gross income? Say yes, and I'll pay for a lawyer we agree on
to arrange the file conversion and viewing test in a controlled, impartial
environment where you can't cheat, and the lawyer will then collect the
$XXX,XXX you'll then owe me. You'll be in debt to me for the rest of your
life, because your big cola mouth blabs silliness you can't back up.

Oh, and I'll gladly pay to fly you to the testing location and back, or
we'll come to you. Don't forget your checkbook.
Post by 7
Post by DFS
Post by 7
Post by DFS
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
You will of course now prove that this is an approved method
for counting Linux uptake.
There is no approved method, wackjob.
BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHHAAAA!!!!
Then your lies are toast dumb fsck!!!
What lie?

You're the nutcase who blabs new Linux desktop installs are 1 million+ per
month, and Linux on devices are now 3 million+ installs per month. You have
absolutely no evidence for either claim, yet you continue to spew it. That
makes you the liar.
Post by 7
Why not count press releases? At least its
independently verifiable.
It is, huh? Show me where you independently verified any of the press
releases you tout. In fact, let's see your database of press releases, and
let's see how you derived your insane numbers.... we'll be waiting a long
time... you'll never produce it, 'cause you just made the numbers up like
most cola loonies.

In fact, here's you on cola 12/30/07: "Who cares if the numbers are accurate
or not - Linux and the open source movement is not waiting around for them
to be verified!!"

Hey, did you verify the big Linux press release issued by Sun Microsystems
in late 2003? They said they were going to sell 200,000,000 Linux desktops
(Sun Java Desktops based on Suse) to China CSSC:

http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2003-11/sunflash.20031117.3.xml

Today Sun doesn't even sell Linux, and they apparently sold no JDS desktops
to CSSC, and they never issued a press release saying they sold none.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39205934,00.htm

A press release touting Linux sales or installs is as trustworthy as you.
Post by 7
Don't give me none of that excel based malarky where you can't
add and substract properly.
Use Open Office Calc for your spreadsheet and count
press releases properly adding and subtracting gains
and losses equally.
OpenOffice is for your kind. It makes me laugh and I can't concentrate.
Snit
2008-02-11 05:58:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by 7
Micoshaft asstrotufer DFS fraudulently wrote one behalf of Micoshaft
Post by DFS
Post by 7
Micoshaft sackable Asstroturfer DFS who can't set q factor in a jpeg
compression routine
There are a dozen flags I could but didn't use with ImageMagick convert.
Depends on your definition of 'oodles'. One thing's for sure: you could
never afford to double it like you were squeaking.
Your half wit is half right.
I can't afford to employ a halfwit like you who doesn't
know anything about q factor in jpeg compression
The Q Factor was not even an issue with Kirk... but by Picard's time it
became quite important - right from the very first episode... oh, and it is
J. Picard, *not* J. Pegard, even when you "compress" his name.

:)
--
BU__SH__
cc
2008-02-11 21:40:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by 7
Micoshaft sackable Asstroturfer DFS who can't set q factor in a jpeg
compression routine but claims to be employable earning oodles of money
Post by DFS
Post by DFS
Post by 7
1 million+ Linux desktops get installed per month
And 1 million+ get uninstalled per month.
Not according to the published stats.  They show Linux desktop use
on the rise.
What published stats are you referring to?
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
You will of course now prove that this is an approved method
for counting Linux uptake.
You will of course now prove that your method of keeping a tally in
your head is an approved or better method for counting Linux uptake.
Snit
2008-02-10 20:03:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
Post by DFS
Post by 7
1 million+ Linux desktops get installed per month
And 1 million+ get uninstalled per month.
Not according to the published stats. They show Linux desktop use
on the rise.
What published stats are you referring to?
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8&qpmr=100&qpdt=1&qpct=3&qpt
imeframe=M&qpsp=96&qpnp=12
Linux hits (hundredths of 1 percent)
2006
-------
Feb: 31
Mar 32
Apr 46
May 40
Jun 38
Jul 44
Aug 47
Sep 40
Oct 39
Nov 37
Dec 37
2007
-----
Jan: 35
Feb 42
Mar 40
Apr 41
May 43
Jun 43
Jul 46
Aug 47
Sep 49
Oct 50
Nov 57
Dec 63
2008
------
Jan: 67
Using your 1.2B figure, the data at hitslink shows a total increase over the
last two years of ~4.32M (or 180,000 per month).
Post by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
Post by DFS
Post by 7
More reasons to get on the free Linux bandwagon.
uh oh.... now everyone should use Linux because [you ridiculously
think] a lot of people are adopting it.
cuckoo! cuckoo!
The 1 million new desktops per month estimate might be a bit high but
probably not by much.
It's patently absurd, like most everything flowing from 7's piehole.
Post by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
Using hitslink.com (which the wintrolls themselves love to reference)
we see an average monthly increase better than 0.05% over the last
three months. Going by the generally accepted figure of 1.2 billion
PCs in the world, that puts the monthly growth of desktop Linux at
better 600,000. That is using the most conservative numbers I could
find. Other sites show Linux numbers at twice what hitslink does, so
it
could even be more than 1 million per month. It certainly is within
that order of magnitude, and there is absolutely no doubt that it is
increasing, not decreasing.
It's basically flat over the last 3 years. If you graph it you can barely
see a rise.
Regardless, you're in a better position than I to see Linux desktops. How
many new/increasing desktops do you see on your Linux consulting gigs?
Highest figure I have seen is the BBC which puts them at 0.8%... not exactly
a figure to be proud of.
--
"The music is not inside the piano." - Alan Kay
7
2008-02-11 02:32:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by DFS
Post by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
Post by DFS
Post by 7
1 million+ Linux desktops get installed per month
And 1 million+ get uninstalled per month.
Not according to the published stats. They show Linux desktop use
on the rise.
What published stats are you referring to?
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
http://marketshare.hitslink.com
report.aspx?qprid=8&qpmr=100&qpdt=1&qpct=3&qpt
Post by Snit
Post by DFS
imeframe=M&qpsp=96&qpnp=12
Linux hits (hundredths of 1 percent)
2006
-------
Feb: 31
Mar 32
Apr 46
May 40
Jun 38
Jul 44
Aug 47
Sep 40
Oct 39
Nov 37
Dec 37
2007
-----
Jan: 35
Feb 42
Mar 40
Apr 41
May 43
Jun 43
Jul 46
Aug 47
Sep 49
Oct 50
Nov 57
Dec 63
2008
------
Jan: 67
Using your 1.2B figure, the data at hitslink shows a total increase over
the last two years of ~4.32M (or 180,000 per month).
Post by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
Post by DFS
Post by 7
More reasons to get on the free Linux bandwagon.
uh oh.... now everyone should use Linux because [you ridiculously
think] a lot of people are adopting it.
cuckoo! cuckoo!
The 1 million new desktops per month estimate might be a bit high but
probably not by much.
It's patently absurd, like most everything flowing from 7's piehole.
Post by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
Using hitslink.com (which the wintrolls themselves love to reference)
we see an average monthly increase better than 0.05% over the last
three months. Going by the generally accepted figure of 1.2 billion
PCs in the world, that puts the monthly growth of desktop Linux at
better 600,000. That is using the most conservative numbers I could
find. Other sites show Linux numbers at twice what hitslink does, so
it
could even be more than 1 million per month. It certainly is within
that order of magnitude, and there is absolutely no doubt that it is
increasing, not decreasing.
It's basically flat over the last 3 years. If you graph it you can
barely see a rise.
Regardless, you're in a better position than I to see Linux desktops.
How many new/increasing desktops do you see on your Linux consulting
gigs?
Highest figure I have seen is the BBC which puts them at 0.8%... not
exactly a figure to be proud of.
All you have to do and the BBC have to do is now
prove is that you have used an approved methodology to measure Linux.

BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!
Snit
2008-02-11 02:57:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by 7
Post by Snit
Post by DFS
It's basically flat over the last 3 years. If you graph it you can
barely see a rise.
Regardless, you're in a better position than I to see Linux desktops.
How many new/increasing desktops do you see on your Linux consulting
gigs?
Highest figure I have seen is the BBC which puts them at 0.8%... not
exactly a figure to be proud of.
All you have to do and the BBC have to do is now
prove is that you have used an approved methodology to measure Linux.
BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!
The fact is that Linux has a miniscule share of the desktop market: in
recent reports NetApp says 0.67%, the BBC says 0.8%. Let's be kind and say
the real figure is about 1%. Abysmal, considering the desktop is the *only*
think Linus really cares about.

I have been talking about pros and cons of Linux as compared to other OSs
and some suggestions on what Linux can do to improve itself and its share of
the desktop.

Frankly it seems people are more interested in bickering than in actually
having such discussions - and I will admit that I also enjoy pointing out
the absurdity of the silly BS that people post to try to upset me. For
example, look at my exchanges with Rick... he made the claim that Ubuntu was
as easy to use as OS X (or easier) so I asked him to support his claim. I
was able to show examples of where each OS has some benefits over the other
- but Rick was not only completely incapable of doing so he could not
understand simple concepts. Sadly he is one of the better Linux advocates
and he completely failed to understand what he was talking about.... he was
grossly over his head.

In general Linux folks get the "crunchy" programming bits (better than I do,
I would hope) but when it comes to UI or graphical design they are lost -
and that seems common not just in COLA but throughout the Linux community.
It is a problem that Apple overcomes - at least in part - by using OSS
software for its backend and then a proprietary front end where they can set
excellent (though not perfect) UI standards that almost all standard OS X
software follows.

Maybe this is the solution for Linux... if some popular distro would insist
that it would only fully support software that fit its UI standards and made
those standards clear then perhaps designers would work to comply. To some
extent Ubuntu seems to be trying to do this... and I wish them well.
Unfortunately many in COLA do not understand the value of this... and I
suspect this is true of most in the OSS community. It does not help that
the overall look of Ubuntu may have been made by blind sea monkeys. Maybe
if the folks who designed the skin for PCLinuxOS were to combine forces with
the Ubuntu team and use their ability to make a good look with Ubuntu's
concepts of making a consistent UI... and, of course, if the two were to
work together, being that they are so big, they would be more likely to help
reign in some of the massive fracturing in the OSS software community and
help to bring people together to make an OS that is truly excellent for the
desktop.

I would love to see this happen and see Linux get past 1% on the desktop.
Sadly I doubt it will happen - few Linux folks get the importance of this. A
year from now Linux is unlikely to have made it even to 2%. I would be
surprised - pleasantly so - to see it make it to 1.5%
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
7
2008-02-11 03:47:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by 7
Post by Snit
Post by DFS
It's basically flat over the last 3 years. If you graph it you can
barely see a rise.
Regardless, you're in a better position than I to see Linux desktops.
How many new/increasing desktops do you see on your Linux consulting
gigs?
Highest figure I have seen is the BBC which puts them at 0.8%... not
exactly a figure to be proud of.
All you have to do and the BBC have to do is now
prove is that you have used an approved methodology to measure Linux.
BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!
The fact is that Linux has a miniscule share of the desktop market: in
recent reports NetApp says 0.67%, the BBC says 0.8%.
BWAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAAA!!!

All you have to do now is prove that your BBC has used an approved
independently verifiable methodology that measures Linux.

At least press releases are independently verifiable.
At least 1 million+ Linux desktops installed per month
and 3 million+ embedded Linux devices sold PER DAY.
Snit
2008-02-11 04:04:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by 7
Post by Snit
Post by 7
Post by Snit
Post by DFS
It's basically flat over the last 3 years. If you graph it you can
barely see a rise.
Regardless, you're in a better position than I to see Linux desktops.
How many new/increasing desktops do you see on your Linux consulting
gigs?
Highest figure I have seen is the BBC which puts them at 0.8%... not
exactly a figure to be proud of.
All you have to do and the BBC have to do is now
prove is that you have used an approved methodology to measure Linux.
BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!
The fact is that Linux has a miniscule share of the desktop market: in
recent reports NetApp says 0.67%, the BBC says 0.8%.
BWAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAAA!!!
All you have to do now is prove that your BBC has used an approved
independently verifiable methodology that measures Linux.
At least press releases are independently verifiable.
At least 1 million+ Linux desktops installed per month
and 3 million+ embedded Linux devices sold PER DAY.
If you can find any reason to show that there is a greater than 1%
penetration of Linux on the desktop then show it... but if you could you
would.

Linux.
Free.
Runs on almost anything.
Offered as an option by the biggest OEMs
Less than 1% of the only market Linus really cares about.

Compared to:

OS X
Not free.
Runs only on relatively high end proprietary hardware.
Offered by only one relatively small OEM
Around 10% of the the same market

Linux has a problem here. A big one. Not sure why folks in the Linux
community are so afraid to look at it.
--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Holz
2008-02-11 06:25:43 UTC
Permalink
Linux has a problem here.  A big one.  Not sure why folks in the Linux
community are so afraid to look at it.
you are right. This is why you have to load all your "anti" software (virus.
malware, spyware etc.) and we sit and laugh.
--
:-)
Snit
2008-02-11 06:47:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Holz
Linux has a problem here.  A big one.  Not sure why folks in the Linux
community are so afraid to look at it.
you are right. This is why you have to load all your "anti" software (virus.
malware, spyware etc.) and we sit and laugh.
Alrighty... I'll bite: why do I *have* to load such software? This should
be good.

Hint: other than on a virtual machine I have none - and it, really, is of no
concern to me.
--
Never stand between a dog and the hydrant. - John Peers
t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
2008-02-11 21:30:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Highest figure I have seen is the BBC which puts them at 0.8%... not exactly
a figure to be proud of.
I suppose it depends on what sort of thing one takes pride in. I
think Linux developers can be very proud of the hard work they've
put into their OS and the steady improvement it has made. I think
that they can also be proud that Linux continues to increase in
popularity (however slowly) even while competing with a mult-billion
dollar rival with a reputation for crushing nearly all competitors.
I'm personally very happy with my Linux desktop, and it really
doesn't matter to me very much if it used by 0.8% of the population
or 80% as long as it continues to improve and accumulate more
and better software.

Thad
--
Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
all the ingredients on the label.
Hadron
2008-02-11 21:56:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
Post by Snit
Highest figure I have seen is the BBC which puts them at 0.8%... not exactly
a figure to be proud of.
I suppose it depends on what sort of thing one takes pride in. I
think Linux developers can be very proud of the hard work they've
put into their OS and the steady improvement it has made. I think
that they can also be proud that Linux continues to increase in
popularity (however slowly) even while competing with a mult-billion
dollar rival with a reputation for crushing nearly all competitors.
I'm personally very happy with my Linux desktop, and it really
doesn't matter to me very much if it used by 0.8% of the population
or 80% as long as it continues to improve and accumulate more
and better software.
Thad
And you continue to make money out of it being a big fish in a small
pond.
t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
2008-02-11 22:39:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
And you continue to make money out of it being a big fish in a small
pond.
Is that supposed to be a bad thing?

Thad
--
Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
all the ingredients on the label.
Hadron
2008-02-11 22:54:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
Post by Hadron
And you continue to make money out of it being a big fish in a small
pond.
Is that supposed to be a bad thing?
Not at all. I was just remarking that your views and biases are heavily
influenced by your need to perpetuate the Linux growth and thus make
yourself more money.
t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
2008-02-12 18:51:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
Not at all. I was just remarking that your views and biases are heavily
influenced by your need to perpetuate the Linux growth and thus make
yourself more money.
Fair enough. I suppose that does play a roll in my motives... though
I also consider it the better technical solution in most cases also.

Thad
--
Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
all the ingredients on the label.
Snit
2008-02-11 23:44:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
Post by Snit
Highest figure I have seen is the BBC which puts them at 0.8%... not exactly
a figure to be proud of.
I suppose it depends on what sort of thing one takes pride in.
Sure: I am not saying that Linux developers should not be proud of their
work and how far they have come. Fair enough.
Post by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
I think Linux developers can be very proud of the hard work they've put into
their OS and the steady improvement it has made. I think that they can also
be proud that Linux continues to increase in popularity (however slowly) even
while competing with a mult-billion dollar rival with a reputation for
crushing nearly all competitors. I'm personally very happy with my Linux
desktop, and it really doesn't matter to me very much if it used by 0.8% of
the population or 80% as long as it continues to improve and accumulate more
and better software.
Fair enough... if adoption is not your goal then the low adoption rate is
not a problem... or even if it is you can still take pride in other things.
Or you can give a hoot about "pride" in your OS and just be happy you can
get things done.

What the figures do say, though, is that for the general desktop it is not a
good sign for Linux in making a products that is as good or better than
Windows - after all, it is *free*. There is very little any company can do
to compete with *free*.
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
--Albert Einstein
t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
2008-02-12 18:59:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
What the figures do say, though, is that for the general desktop it is not a
good sign for Linux in making a products that is as good or better than
Windows - after all, it is *free*. There is very little any company can do
to compete with *free*.
I'm not particularly worried. In my opinion, Linux has only recently
(within the last year or two) matured into an adaquate desktop
subsitute for most users. It takes years to churn an entrenched
install base, and we are really at the beginning of the trend. The
initial trend lines are moving in the correct direction at least.

I would be interested in seeing the early trend lines for Internet
use charted against the entire population and see how long it
hovered below 1% before it began its explosive increase. I think
there are similar network effects at play here.

Thad
--
Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
all the ingredients on the label.
Snit
2008-02-12 19:51:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
Post by Snit
What the figures do say, though, is that for the general desktop it is not a
good sign for Linux in making a products that is as good or better than
Windows - after all, it is *free*. There is very little any company can do
to compete with *free*.
I'm not particularly worried. In my opinion, Linux has only recently
(within the last year or two) matured into an adaquate desktop
subsitute for most users.
Well, it is still maturing there... not sure there is any given "test" to
say when it is "there".
Post by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
It takes years to churn an entrenched
install base, and we are really at the beginning of the trend. The
initial trend lines are moving in the correct direction at least.
Well, hard to say when you are at 1% or less, but it does seem that way.
People keep predicting it will be the year of the Linux desktop... I hope
so. I would love to see it.
Post by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
I would be interested in seeing the early trend lines for Internet
use charted against the entire population and see how long it
hovered below 1% before it began its explosive increase. I think
there are similar network effects at play here.
Could be... with a price of free it should be able to spread quickly.
--
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Moshe Goldfarb
2008-02-12 02:25:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
Post by Snit
Highest figure I have seen is the BBC which puts them at 0.8%... not exactly
a figure to be proud of.
I suppose it depends on what sort of thing one takes pride in. I
think Linux developers can be very proud of the hard work they've
put into their OS and the steady improvement it has made. I think
that they can also be proud that Linux continues to increase in
popularity (however slowly) even while competing with a mult-billion
dollar rival with a reputation for crushing nearly all competitors.
I'm personally very happy with my Linux desktop, and it really
doesn't matter to me very much if it used by 0.8% of the population
or 80% as long as it continues to improve and accumulate more
and better software.
Thad
Very well put Thad!
Personally, I think it's amazing how far Linux has come considering the
competition.
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Snit
2008-02-12 02:46:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Moshe Goldfarb
Post by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
Post by Snit
Highest figure I have seen is the BBC which puts them at 0.8%... not exactly
a figure to be proud of.
I suppose it depends on what sort of thing one takes pride in. I
think Linux developers can be very proud of the hard work they've
put into their OS and the steady improvement it has made. I think
that they can also be proud that Linux continues to increase in
popularity (however slowly) even while competing with a mult-billion
dollar rival with a reputation for crushing nearly all competitors.
I'm personally very happy with my Linux desktop, and it really
doesn't matter to me very much if it used by 0.8% of the population
or 80% as long as it continues to improve and accumulate more
and better software.
Thad
Very well put Thad!
Personally, I think it's amazing how far Linux has come considering the
competition.
I think it is amazing what Linux offers considering it is free. Really is
just amazing. A weakness with the OSS model, though, is building a true
world class consistent and excellent UI - and that is what would really do
well on the desktop. For a *free* product to not be able to get past 1% is
not really that impressive... especially after so many downloads and being
available through the largest OEMs.
--
Satan lives for my sins... now *that* is dedication!
t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
2008-02-11 21:20:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Using your 1.2B figure, the data at hitslink shows a total increase over the
last two years of ~4.32M (or 180,000 per month).
Looking at the long range trends, it is clear Linux had almost no
desktop growth in previous years and a noticeable increase in current
months. If we are trying estimate what CURRENT desktop roll-out is,
it hardly makes sense to average it too far in the past; that is
why I chose a three month rolling average.
Post by DFS
It's basically flat over the last 3 years. If you graph it you can barely
see a rise.
Regardless, you're in a better position than I to see Linux desktops. How
many new/increasing desktops do you see on your Linux consulting gigs?
Certainly it is still small when graphed against the Windows, but the
point is that it IS increasing and is not stagnant nor decreasing like
some around here claim. If you accept hitslink as accurate, than you
must agree that the last several months have seen Linux add better
than half a million desktops each month.

And yes, I have anecdotal evidence of that desktop growth. I see
a LOT more desktop Linux than I did just a couple of years ago.
It used to be that I went into a development job and was given a
Windows system with X software to remotely access Linux servers
and lab systems on which development was done. Nowadays I more
often than not step into environments that have mostly Linux
desktops in their development and support areas. I also see
more 'average users' running it (where I used to see only fellow
geeks running it a few years ago). Again, these numbers are
still small, but noticeably larger than they were, and still
increasing.

Thad
--
Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
all the ingredients on the label.
Hadron
2008-02-11 21:30:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
Post by DFS
Using your 1.2B figure, the data at hitslink shows a total increase over the
last two years of ~4.32M (or 180,000 per month).
Looking at the long range trends, it is clear Linux had almost no
desktop growth in previous years and a noticeable increase in current
months. If we are trying estimate what CURRENT desktop roll-out is,
it hardly makes sense to average it too far in the past; that is
why I chose a three month rolling average.
Post by DFS
It's basically flat over the last 3 years. If you graph it you can barely
see a rise.
Regardless, you're in a better position than I to see Linux desktops. How
many new/increasing desktops do you see on your Linux consulting gigs?
Certainly it is still small when graphed against the Windows, but the
point is that it IS increasing and is not stagnant nor decreasing like
some around here claim. If you accept hitslink as accurate, than you
must agree that the last several months have seen Linux add better
than half a million desktops each month.
And yes, I have anecdotal evidence of that desktop growth. I see
a LOT more desktop Linux than I did just a couple of years ago.
It used to be that I went into a development job and was given a
Windows system with X software to remotely access Linux servers
and lab systems on which development was done. Nowadays I more
often than not step into environments that have mostly Linux
desktops in their development and support areas. I also see
more 'average users' running it (where I used to see only fellow
geeks running it a few years ago). Again, these numbers are
still small, but noticeably larger than they were, and still
increasing.
Meaningless. You are a Linux consultant. Its saying something that the
ONLY place you have seen Linux uptake increased is in .... Yup, Linux
houses!
t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
2008-02-11 21:56:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
Meaningless. You are a Linux consultant. Its saying something that the
ONLY place you have seen Linux uptake increased is in .... Yup, Linux
houses!
So those don't count as real desktops? What sort of weird logic is
that!? If a company moves its server infrastructure to Linux, and
then follows that with a bunch of desktops for their IT group...
how are those desktops any less a desktop than any other desktop.
Should I be trying to count Linux desktops in environments that are
purely Windows shops?

Thad
--
Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
all the ingredients on the label.
Hadron
2008-02-11 22:38:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
Post by Hadron
Meaningless. You are a Linux consultant. Its saying something that the
ONLY place you have seen Linux uptake increased is in .... Yup, Linux
houses!
So those don't count as real desktops? What sort of weird logic is
that!? If a company moves its server infrastructure to Linux, and
then follows that with a bunch of desktops for their IT group...
how are those desktops any less a desktop than any other desktop.
Should I be trying to count Linux desktops in environments that are
purely Windows shops?
Thad
Of course not. But considering ones where they develop Linux SW but used
to use Windows with X to do it is a bit silly.
t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
2008-02-12 18:50:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
Post by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
So those don't count as real desktops? What sort of weird logic is
that!? If a company moves its server infrastructure to Linux, and
then follows that with a bunch of desktops for their IT group...
how are those desktops any less a desktop than any other desktop.
Should I be trying to count Linux desktops in environments that are
purely Windows shops?
Thad
Of course not. But considering ones where they develop Linux SW but used
to use Windows with X to do it is a bit silly.
I don't see why. They still add to the desktop totals, and they
still had to address all the same issues of having those desktops
participate in the corporate network along with Windows desktops.
These are the important trailblazing installs that must preceed
any larger roll-out.

And besides, these are not just Linux software development
houses I'm talking about. I'm including various enterprise
class businesses that just happen to use a lot of Linux server
technology, which sometimes results in a spill-over to the
desktop. Again, this is a small trend but noticeably on the
increase. I suspect a sizeable part of that 0.6 - 1.2 percent
Linux browser share that we see reported is from I.T.
professionals browsing from work.

Thad
--
Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
all the ingredients on the label.
DFS
2008-02-10 13:59:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by raylopez99
BTW I running Vista Ultimate right now on a $3 copy I bought in Asia.
Yet you claim to be a millionaire who bills $200/hour...
Rick
2008-02-10 14:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by raylopez99
BTW I running Vista Ultimate right now on a $3 copy I bought in Asia.
Yet you claim to be a millionaire who bills $200/hour...
Maybe buying things for dollars when anothers pay hundreds of dollars is
one way to amass a fortune.
--
Rick
Clogwog
2008-02-10 15:00:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by raylopez99
BTW I running Vista Ultimate right now on a $3 copy I bought in Asia.
Yet you claim to be a millionaire who bills $200/hour...
I bet the cheap scrooge cunt downloaded a pirated copy from The Pirate Bay
instead, cos he wouldn't allow the Asians to rip him off for $3,=
Loading Image...
DanS
2008-02-10 14:55:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by raylopez99
Microsoft claims they are concerned for potential users of Vista (or
XP) about the effects of counterfeit copies of Vista and viruses,
trojans, etc that may be loaded onto such counterfeit copies.
If this is true, then why doesn't Microsoft insist that a clean
reininstall of Windows Vista or XP be done if a counterfeit copy is
detected? Instead, Microsoft merely asks a user of a counterfeit copy
that a Genuine Windows key be bought. No virus check is done, nor is
a clean reinstall performed. In fact, after you buy a Genuine Windows
key, no backup copy of Windows is sent on a DVD/CD unless you pay
extra. So even if a user wants to do a clean reinstall, they cannot.
And if you read the fine print on a EULA they post, it says that MSFT
is not responsible if, even with a Genuine Windows XP key, your system
is infected by a virus and you have to rebuy another key later (so
some lawyer at least has thought of this problem).
Anybody notice this paradox? Seems MSFT is only concerned with your
money after all, not your security.
You are right. This has nothing to do with 'protecting' us.

It's just another scare tactic. Propaganda.
Post by raylopez99
BTW I running Vista Ultimate right now on a $3 copy I bought in Asia.
I'm not sure, maybe it's the shoddy packaging, maybe it's the low
price, but something tells me it might not be a genuine copy. But no
matter, so far, and I've avoided the SP1, it's working fine and I
don't notice any obvious trojans or viruses.
No comment.
cheen
2008-02-10 16:08:34 UTC
Permalink
they want customers from rich countries to pay for what they get,
but kinda turn their eyes away on piracy from developing nations because
they want windows to be learned and depenended upon.. for example MS's
biggest nightmare is for china to use only Linux! LOL

They prefer them being pirates and perhaps a future customer than everything
to be based on linux over there...

they are even putting their dirty hands on the OLPC project by making a
version of xp that will run on that...

read here http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS5428347716.html
Post by raylopez99
Microsoft claims they are concerned for potential users of Vista (or
XP) about the effects of counterfeit copies of Vista and viruses,
trojans, etc that may be loaded onto such counterfeit copies.
If this is true, then why doesn't Microsoft insist that a clean
reininstall of Windows Vista or XP be done if a counterfeit copy is
detected? Instead, Microsoft merely asks a user of a counterfeit copy
that a Genuine Windows key be bought. No virus check is done, nor is
a clean reinstall performed. In fact, after you buy a Genuine Windows
key, no backup copy of Windows is sent on a DVD/CD unless you pay
extra. So even if a user wants to do a clean reinstall, they cannot.
And if you read the fine print on a EULA they post, it says that MSFT
is not responsible if, even with a Genuine Windows XP key, your system
is infected by a virus and you have to rebuy another key later (so
some lawyer at least has thought of this problem).
Anybody notice this paradox? Seems MSFT is only concerned with your
money after all, not your security.
BTW I running Vista Ultimate right now on a $3 copy I bought in Asia.
I'm not sure, maybe it's the shoddy packaging, maybe it's the low
price, but something tells me it might not be a genuine copy. But no
matter, so far, and I've avoided the SP1, it's working fine and I
don't notice any obvious trojans or viruses.
RL
Spanky deMonkey
2008-02-10 23:31:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by cheen
they want customers from rich countries to pay for what they get,
but kinda turn their eyes away on piracy from developing nations because
they want windows to be learned and depenended upon.. for example MS's
biggest nightmare is for china to use only Linux! LOL
Vista.generals biggest nightmare is Cheen. Just FYI
Post by cheen
They prefer them being pirates and perhaps a future customer than
everything to be based on linux over there...
they are even putting their dirty hands on the OLPC project by making a
version of xp that will run on that...
read here http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS5428347716.html
Post by raylopez99
Microsoft claims they are concerned for potential users of Vista (or
XP) about the effects of counterfeit copies of Vista and viruses,
trojans, etc that may be loaded onto such counterfeit copies.
If this is true, then why doesn't Microsoft insist that a clean
reininstall of Windows Vista or XP be done if a counterfeit copy is
detected? Instead, Microsoft merely asks a user of a counterfeit copy
that a Genuine Windows key be bought. No virus check is done, nor is
a clean reinstall performed. In fact, after you buy a Genuine Windows
key, no backup copy of Windows is sent on a DVD/CD unless you pay
extra. So even if a user wants to do a clean reinstall, they cannot.
And if you read the fine print on a EULA they post, it says that MSFT
is not responsible if, even with a Genuine Windows XP key, your system
is infected by a virus and you have to rebuy another key later (so
some lawyer at least has thought of this problem).
Anybody notice this paradox? Seems MSFT is only concerned with your
money after all, not your security.
BTW I running Vista Ultimate right now on a $3 copy I bought in Asia.
I'm not sure, maybe it's the shoddy packaging, maybe it's the low
price, but something tells me it might not be a genuine copy. But no
matter, so far, and I've avoided the SP1, it's working fine and I
don't notice any obvious trojans or viruses.
RL
Moshe Goldfarb
2008-02-10 16:44:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by raylopez99
Microsoft claims they are concerned for potential users of Vista (or
XP) about the effects of counterfeit copies of Vista and viruses,
trojans, etc that may be loaded onto such counterfeit copies.
Whenever ANY large company claims they have *your* best interests in mind
you should run...
And fast....

The same thing applies when large corporations express interest in Linux
and offer a few scraps for free to the Linux community.
Watch out....
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Loading...