OEM vs Retail XP Pro

[Mxsmanic]

You can figure Linux users are more likely (than Windows users)
skilled and maybe motivated enough to do that.

On what basis?

 

[Matt]

The people you run into are a much less reliable measure of Linux
penetration than the browser numbers in my logs, which are not subject
to bias.

Is your site best viewed using Internet Explorer?

 

[David Maynard]

David Maynard writes:




You can't administer a Windows server without a GUI.

Network access is not 'administering'.

 

[David Maynard]

John Doe writes:




On what basis?

Would seem we've cycled back around to Linux being more difficult therefor
users of it must be more skilled

But why those who have fled the devil's own O.S. would then chose to have
their new pure of heart browser identified as satan's pawn remains more of
a mystery.

 

[Mxsmanic]

Is your site best viewed using Internet Explorer?

No, it will work with any standards-conformant browser. I use Firefox
myself, but it looks practically identical with MSIE and Opera. It can
even be navigated with Lynx.

 

[Ken]

Well, either those numbers are a) fictitious b) from a study sponsored by MS
c) from a study based on browser hits d) obtained from someone who got them
from someone else and so on, or e) wishful thinking.

I found one story that claimed Linux had less than .25% marketshare on the
desktop worldwide, but it's based on browser hits:

http://www.macworld.com/news/2001/12/19/linux/

Here's another study that claims Linux has 3.2% marketshare in 2003,
and that it's higher than the Mac's:

Statistics from my homepage since 5 March 2005.
Linux/Unix: 4.17% Unique Visitors: 28679
http://extremetracking.com/open;sys?login=snowback
(Swedish homepage)

 

[Ruel Smith]

No, three tenths of 1% is equal to one in 300. 1/0.003 = 333.

Yes, you got me on that one. I wasn't thinking correctly while writing the
response. However, the rest of your response what complete utter bullshit.

 

[Ruel Smith]

But why those who have fled the devil's own O.S. would then chose to have
their new pure of heart browser identified as satan's pawn remains more of
a mystery.

Because there are numerous sites that identify your browser and decide
whether or not you view the page or get a "browser not supported" page
instead. Personally, I only do it when I reach those particular sites.

 

[David Maynard]

David Maynard wrote:




Because there are numerous sites that identify your browser and decide
whether or not you view the page or get a "browser not supported" page
instead. Personally, I only do it when I reach those particular sites.

And you run across 'numerous' sites that don't support Netscape? Because
that's what Konqueror defaults to for identification, at least on Suse.

Besides MS update, which I doubt a Linux user cares about, I've only run
into one place that wanted to force me into IE and that was an ISP that
also wanted to force me to use 'their software' and plied their home page
with IE 'features'. Didn't work as I didn't care for their 'features' anyway.

 

[Mxsmanic]

Because there are numerous sites that identify your browser and decide
whether or not you view the page or get a "browser not supported" page
instead.

Only a handful of sites still do that.

 

[John Doe]

Troll.

Path: newsdbm06.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!news-feed01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net!nntp.frontiernet.net!news02.roc.ny.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: Matt <matt themattfella.zzzz.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050328 Fedora/1.7.6-1.2.5
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: OEM vs Retail XP Pro
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <pcVbe.335$6r5.125 news02.roc.ny>
X-Complaints-To: (e-mail address removed)
X-Trace: 52616e646f6d4956ac176a4c2b0e6405f87cf0f7dad4ccb29a84bbef17748ba4c345edb9135286517b1b8a23fdfbf9fc65acec38a5a7363ec3884e83a7492c865cdad6df12a659a4590dc992a883eab8716e12501317e36d3d785f2cf3d10f2a
X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward ALL headers so that we may process your complaint properly.
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:26:13 UTC
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:26:13 GMT
Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:434411

 

[Kadaitcha Man]

John Doe, <[email protected]>, the genitally challenged, repellent
hippo, and dealer in pickles and dried meats, bugged:

Troll.

ARRRRRGGGHHHH! *PLONK*

 

[Mxsmanic]

Extremely active tough guy wanna-be and troll who runs a web site
that is accessible to children.

Disney runs a Web site that is accessible to children, too.

 

[Ruel Smith]

Mxsmanic wrote

Open-source software is written as a function of what geeks are
willing to work on for free. In general, they work only on what they
find fun. Doing something weird or challenging is fun. Getting
uninteresting details to work, or maintaining software, or fixing bugs,
or providing comprehensive support for even unchallenging hardware or
software, is not fun. So you can really profit from open source only if
the software you need also happens to be software that is fun to write.

Not to rehash this argument, but I just stumbled upon this:

http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=34392

This just backed up my claim that geeks in their parents' house aren't
writing this stuff for free.