Hadron wrote:
> Ben <beno1990@gmail.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.