Hi all,

Sorry if this seems to be a very dumb question. I am a Windows user. But 
recently I have to do some C++ programming on Linux/Unix platform. There are 
so many Linux around, I've only heard about redhat. But it looks there is a 
Kubuntu, can anybody say something about which one is the most popular 
linux, which Linux has the most software support? This is important to me 
because once I stick with a Linux, I have to stick myself with a Linux that 
has the largest user-base and software-support so I can consult people when 
I have difficulties... thanks a lot! 

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:28:46 -0700, Michael mumbled:
> Hi all,
>
> Sorry if this seems to be a very dumb question. I am a Windows user. But 
> recently I have to do some C++ programming on Linux/Unix platform. There are 
> so many Linux around, I've only heard about redhat. But it looks there is a 
> Kubuntu, can anybody say something about which one is the most popular 
> linux, which Linux has the most software support? This is important to me 
> because once I stick with a Linux, I have to stick myself with a Linux that 
> has the largest user-base and software-support so I can consult people when 
> I have difficulties... thanks a lot! 
>
>

Have a look at http://www.distrowatch.com and make your own mind up.
Everyone *thinks* they are using the _best_ version! ;-)

-- 
Simon.

TIP: Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
=====================================================================

Michael wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Sorry if this seems to be a very dumb question. I am a Windows user.
> But recently I have to do some C++ programming on Linux/Unix platform.
> There are so many Linux around, I've only heard about redhat. 

Yes, choice is a confusing thing at first when you're not used to it ;-)

Take a look at distrowatch.com and try a couple before deciding
which /you/ prefer. Redhat focuses on 'enterprise' version and offers
it's services via subscription - CentOS is a free version. Fedora is
the free platform Redhat uses to test new features before putting them
into the enterprise version. It is much more robust/stable that it
sounds ;-)

> But it 
> looks there is a Kubuntu, can anybody say something about which one is
> the most popular linux, which Linux has the most software support?

(K/X)ubuntu is the darling of the Linux comunity at the moment as very
popular and well supported. However, with no sales or registration or
'activation' requirements with free software it's very difficult to get
absolute numbers on 'popularity'.

> This is important to me because once I stick with a Linux, I have to
> stick myself with a Linux that has the largest user-base and
> software-support so I can consult people when I have difficulties...
> thanks a lot!

Apart from a few wrinkles Linux is Linux regardless of which distro you
use. Unless you've got a specific app (usually proprietary) that will
only work with certain distros, then you can happily use any distro you
like.

Michael wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Sorry if this seems to be a very dumb question. I am a Windows user. But 
> recently I have to do some C++ programming on Linux/Unix platform. There are 
> so many Linux around, I've only heard about redhat. But it looks there is a 
> Kubuntu, can anybody say something about which one is the most popular 
> linux, which Linux has the most software support? This is important to me 
> because once I stick with a Linux, I have to stick myself with a Linux that 
> has the largest user-base and software-support so I can consult people when 
> I have difficulties... thanks a lot! 
> 
> 
For development, Debian is not bad at all.

In reality they are all the same, great code, crap documentation. And no 
help from anyone if you dare to criticise it in any way, haven't got the 
latest release, and don't stick pins in Gates effigies as you bow down 
and worship Linus Torvald's icon..

YOU thought it was an operating system. Wrong. Its a religion and a way 
of life apparently...:-)

"Michael" <michael.monkey.in.the.jungle@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi all,
>
> Sorry if this seems to be a very dumb question. I am a Windows user. But 
> recently I have to do some C++ programming on Linux/Unix platform. There are 
> so many Linux around, I've only heard about redhat. But it looks there is a 
> Kubuntu, can anybody say something about which one is the most popular 
> linux, which Linux has the most software support? This is important to me 
> because once I stick with a Linux, I have to stick myself with a Linux that 
> has the largest user-base and software-support so I can consult people when 
> I have difficulties... thanks a lot! 

All distros provide pretty much the same software.

If you like Usenet support, the Mandriva group is pretty good.

One hint, no matter which distro you pick, when you ask questions
try not to mention Windows.

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:28:46 -0700, Michael wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Sorry if this seems to be a very dumb question. I am a Windows user. But 
> recently I have to do some C++ programming on Linux/Unix platform. There are 
> so many Linux around, I've only heard about redhat. But it looks there is a 
> Kubuntu, can anybody say something about which one is the most popular 
> linux, which Linux has the most software support? This is important to me 
> because once I stick with a Linux, I have to stick myself with a Linux that 
> has the largest user-base and software-support so I can consult people when 
> I have difficulties... thanks a lot!

The are over 360 active Linux distributions. It is very difficult to say
that any one is 'best' according to any particular criteria. I suggest you
visit distrowatch.com and learn for yourself. I would expect that any of
the distros near the top of the hit page rankings should fulfill your
needs.

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:28:46 -0700, Michael wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Sorry if this seems to be a very dumb question. I am a Windows user. But 
> recently I have to do some C++ programming on Linux/Unix platform. There are 
> so many Linux around, I've only heard about redhat. But it looks there is a 
> Kubuntu, can anybody say something about which one is the most popular 
> linux, which Linux has the most software support? This is important to me 
> because once I stick with a Linux, I have to stick myself with a Linux that 
> has the largest user-base and software-support so I can consult people when 
> I have difficulties... thanks a lot!

BTW - there are a large number of Live CDs (and even Live DVDs now)
available. These will boot and run from the CD/DVD without doing an
install - allows you to 'try before you buy' - i.e. you can get a feel
without even doing an install. My favorites are Knoppix and Elive - Ubuntu
and SUSE also have ones - nearly everyone does now.

Michael wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Sorry if this seems to be a very dumb question. I am a Windows user. But
> recently I have to do some C++ programming on Linux/Unix platform. There are
> so many Linux around, I've only heard about redhat.

Why does every new linux user have only heard of Redhat before? :S

> But it looks there is a Kubuntu, can anybody say something about which one is the most popular
> linux, which Linux has the most software support?

Speaking of my own 5 years of history working with various major Linux
distributions and statistics gathered by the LinuxQuestions forums:
1. Slackware linux - you will never see a more stable system or harder
to "play" with, maybe besides LFS. Great for developing, very popular
but not amongst the faint of heart.
2. Ubuntu with variants Kubuntu (KDE) and Xubuntu (Xfce) are the most
popular distros, from the whole linux user base, I would say. And
there's there's nothing amazing about that, Ubuntu is simply the
easiest linux around. I would say also good for development, GREAT
support (via the forums) but not the easiest to "play aroud" with
either.
3. Gentoo Linux, unlike the other distributions, you can optimeze this
distribution by compiling everything from generic 486, 686 to your
specific machine's architecture and optimizations. Trully customizable
distribution, powerfull package management; second easiest way to
install software (first being apt-get from the Debian/Ubuntu like
distros); takes long time to finish installs because of compile times
but in the end you get nothing but the fastest package of a
package/program that you specifically customized for your own needs. I
think it's the best developing distro, and the easiest to manage
desktop machine and server. That's what I use and recommend.

Others worth mentioning are ArchLinux (686 optimized, simple package
manager, apt-get like), Slackware derived distros (Zenwalk for example,
great desktop and coding base) or Debian which is our source for
inspiration :D.

> This is important to me because once I stick with a Linux, I have to stick myself with a Linux that
> has the largest user-base and software-support so I can consult people when
> I have difficulties... thanks a lot!

As I said, ubuntu would have the largest user base (check
linuxquestions.org for statistics - desktop/distro/* of the year
threads/pools) but I recommend Gentoo if you are willing to wait for
apps to compile unlike the other binary based distros and you like an
easy to manage and a great platform for coding and even cross-compiling.

Chris wrote:

> (K/X)ubuntu is the darling of the Linux comunity at the moment as very
> popular and well supported. However, with no sales or registration or
> 'activation' requirements with free software it's very difficult to get
> absolute numbers on 'popularity'.

But you can get the popularity of Linux on the desktop as a whole right here:

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2

Rather interesting... Of course, one must understand that Linux started only 
15 years ago on a fundation that certainly wasn't as solid as MS-DOS. So 
there's some catching up to be done. The only thing we can be sure of is that 
the development model is absolutely perfect: usability is excellent and 
documentation is godsent.

Yugo wrote:

> Chris wrote:
> 
>> (K/X)ubuntu is the darling of the Linux comunity at the moment as very
>> popular and well supported. However, with no sales or registration or
>> 'activation' requirements with free software it's very difficult to get
>> absolute numbers on 'popularity'.
> 
> But you can get the popularity of Linux on the desktop as a whole right
> here:
> 
> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2
> 
> Rather interesting... Of course, one must understand that Linux started
> only 15 years ago on a fundation that certainly wasn't as solid as MS-DOS.
> So there's some catching up to be done. The only thing we can be sure of
> is that the development model is absolutely perfect: usability is
> excellent and documentation is godsent.

Market share is not equal to popularity. Since a single download of Linux
can be installed on as many computers as the user wants then passed along
to someone else, the standard "market share" concept of units sold
understate Linux popularity. 

-- 
Because I am tired of google trolls, I have started blocking all usenet
posts from Google. Have fun Ethan, Tina, Maureen, or whatever name you
chose to go by. 

left_coast wrote:
> Yugo wrote:
> 
> 
>>Chris wrote:
>>
>>
>>>(K/X)ubuntu is the darling of the Linux comunity at the moment as very
>>>popular and well supported. However, with no sales or registration or
>>>'activation' requirements with free software it's very difficult to get
>>>absolute numbers on 'popularity'.
>>
>>But you can get the popularity of Linux on the desktop as a whole right
>>here:
>>
>>http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2
>>
>>Rather interesting... Of course, one must understand that Linux started
>>only 15 years ago on a fundation that certainly wasn't as solid as MS-DOS.
>>So there's some catching up to be done. The only thing we can be sure of
>>is that the development model is absolutely perfect: usability is
>>excellent and documentation is godsent.
> 
> 
> Market share is not equal to popularity. Since a single download of Linux
> can be installed on as many computers as the user wants then passed along
> to someone else, the standard "market share" concept of units sold
> understate Linux popularity.

Well said! As we all know, people download one distro and install it on 
hundreds of computers. They never download 10 distros, nine of which end up as 
coasters.

But that's not how the count is reached here:

"We use a unique methodology for collecting this data.  We collect data from 
the browsers of site visitors to our exclusive on demand network of small to 
medium enterprise live stats customers.  The sample size for these sites is 
more than 40,000 urls and growing.  The information published is an aggregate 
of the data from this network of hosted website statistics.  The site unique 
visitor and referral information is summarized on a monthly basis."

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/

Yugo wrote:

> left_coast wrote:
>> Yugo wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Chris wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>(K/X)ubuntu is the darling of the Linux comunity at the moment as very
>>>>popular and well supported. However, with no sales or registration or
>>>>'activation' requirements with free software it's very difficult to get
>>>>absolute numbers on 'popularity'.
>>>
>>>But you can get the popularity of Linux on the desktop as a whole right
>>>here:
>>>
>>>http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2
>>>
>>>Rather interesting... Of course, one must understand that Linux started
>>>only 15 years ago on a fundation that certainly wasn't as solid as
>>>MS-DOS. So there's some catching up to be done. The only thing we can be
>>>sure of is that the development model is absolutely perfect: usability is
>>>excellent and documentation is godsent.
>> 
>> 
>> Market share is not equal to popularity. Since a single download of Linux
>> can be installed on as many computers as the user wants then passed along
>> to someone else, the standard "market share" concept of units sold
>> understate Linux popularity.
> 
> Well said! As we all know, people download one distro and install it on
> hundreds of computers. They never download 10 distros, nine of which end
> up as coasters.
> 
> But that's not how the count is reached here:
> 
> "We use a unique methodology for collecting this data.  We collect data
> from the browsers of site visitors to our exclusive on demand network of
> small to
> medium enterprise live stats customers.  The sample size for these sites
> is
> more than 40,000 urls and growing.  The information published is an
> aggregate
> of the data from this network of hosted website statistics.  The site
> unique visitor and referral information is summarized on a monthly basis."
> 
> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/

How can you trust a statistic company that does not know the difference
between "market share" and "browsing habits"? There stats only show the
percent of people that visits certain sites, NOT market share as they
claim. The sample is self selecting and as such should not be considered
statistically accurate. 

Only people that go to there "exclusive on demand network of small to medium
enterprise live stats customers" who ever THEY are. If there "small to
medium enterprises" all cater to Microsoft customers and users, then Linux
users would be undercounted. Again, the stats should not be considered
accurate. 

Then, browsers like Konqueror, allow the user to change the information a
site sees. If the "exclusive on demand network of small to medium
enterprise live stats customers" all have sites that require certain
browsers, then other browsers would not be counted. Again, the stats can
not be trusted. 

Then there is the idea of "unique visitor". How is that determined? By IP
address? I would think a Linux user is more likely to have a service that
gives them a static IP address, while a windows user more likely to have a
dial-up giving a bunch of different IP addresses, again, the Linux user
would be undercounted.

Sorry, but there is NOTHING in what you quoted that make me believe that the
are talking about "market share" as they claim they are. If you want to
make the case that they are talking about something other than market
share, then there credibility is out the window. Never mind that their
sampling methodology is less than reasonably accurate. 

No, sorry, those numbers can not be said to reliably reflect the popularity
of Linux on a desktop. 

-- 
Because I am tired of google trolls, I have started blocking all usenet
posts from Google. Have fun Ethan, Tina, Maureen, or whatever name you
chose to go by. 

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 00:44:58 -0400, Yugo <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>[cheap misleading sarcasm]
>
>But that's not how the count is reached here:
>
>[boring details of irrelevant nonsense]

Whether the combination of people doing bulk installations from single
purchases combines with the number of people who wind up with
"coasters" of distros they don't like to form a large or small ratio
of people to disks or IP addresses to trolls or dollars to downloads
or anything else is immaterial; the OP's question about selecting a
relatively popular distro was a reasonable one for a relative newbie,
which I suppose is why it gave a troll a fart attack.

As others have pointed out here, a number of distros have reached the
critical mass of recognized usage where people can expect to get
compatible third-party software and find usable answers to their
questions.  The reason the OP has heard a lot (disproportionately,
some would argue) about Red Hat is basically the reason why Red Hat
and some of its major derivatives are probably good answers to the
OP's question.  Ubuntu is new and may be a flash in the pan FAIK (not
that I am making a prediction) but Ubuntu is Debian-based, and Debian
is long and well established, and Ubuntu's popularity could help
increase recognition of Debian's approach to Linux, which could
contribute to third-party interest, development, support, etc., which
could attract more users, and so on - it's a circular process of
self-reinforcement, kind of like the reasoning of trolls but more
useful.

I picked Red Hat years ago because of its reputation for combined
power and ease of use, and I'm using a Red Hat derivative now
(CentOS).  But I'm not going to argue that it is inherently better
than Debian, or anything else.  Checking out a site like distrowatch
and possibly trying more than one distro to get a personal impression
sound like good suggestions to me; I'd take them if I were just
getting started using Linux.  And neither need require the
augmentation of any market statistic or the production of a single
"coaster".

left_coast (void@void.not) writes:
> Yugo wrote:
> 
>> Chris wrote:
>> 
>>> (K/X)ubuntu is the darling of the Linux comunity at the moment as very
>>> popular and well supported. However, with no sales or registration or
>>> 'activation' requirements with free software it's very difficult to get
>>> absolute numbers on 'popularity'.
>> 
>> But you can get the popularity of Linux on the desktop as a whole right
>> here:
>> 
>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2
>> 
>> Rather interesting... Of course, one must understand that Linux started
>> only 15 years ago on a fundation that certainly wasn't as solid as MS-DOS.
>> So there's some catching up to be done. The only thing we can be sure of
>> is that the development model is absolutely perfect: usability is
>> excellent and documentation is godsent.
> 
> Market share is not equal to popularity. Since a single download of Linux
> can be installed on as many computers as the user wants then passed along
> to someone else, the standard "market share" concept of units sold
> understate Linux popularity. 
> 
I think in the context of "free" software, popularity is market share.
If peope aren't using it, then it can't be popular.  You're more thinking
of "sales", and yes, the number of distributions bought or sold may
not reflect how much secondary propagation that initial sale does.
  
ANd likewise, just because someone downloads a distribution doens't mean
they are going to switch to it, or for that matter even switch to Linux.

Sadly, people using Linux can be just as oriented towards "bigger faster
latest", so they often do get the new kind on the block just to see
what it's like.  That's why there is often a "hot" distribution that
is "hot" until another distribution comes along to knock it to "cold".
People drop a distribution on a whim and move to another one simply
because everyone else is using it.

Those people would rather fiddle with the (admittedly small)
differences between distributions rather than work at getting good
at one, and figuring out how small the differences between distributions
are.

ANd of course, plenty of people using some other operating system may
sample a distribution, again likely a "hot" one, but never keep it
installed, instead remaining with their original operating system.

The only real way of knowing "market share" is by knowing everyone
who is using Linux, and polling them to find out which distribution
they are actually using on a day to day basis.

  Michael

Michael Black wrote:

>> Market share is not equal to popularity. Since a single download of Linux
>> can be installed on as many computers as the user wants then passed along
>> to someone else, the standard "market share" concept of units sold
>> understate Linux popularity.
>> 
> I think in the context of "free" software, popularity is market share.
> If peope aren't using it, then it can't be popular.  You're more thinking
> of "sales", and yes, the number of distributions bought or sold may
> not reflect how much secondary propagation that initial sale does.

Sorry, but "market share" has a very specific definition that deals with
SALES.

http://www.shapetomorrow.com/resources/m.html#marketshare
http://metro.newsmedianet.com.au/home/Glossary.jsp
http://rdsweb2.rdsinc.com/help/bi_ct_expdef.html

Trying to redefine terms to fit your needs is inappropriate and damages your
credibility. 

>   
> ANd likewise, just because someone downloads a distribution doens't mean
> they are going to switch to it, or for that matter even switch to Linux.

Likewise, computers purchased with windows installed does not mean that they
will use Windows, so we agree, that market share is an invalid way of
accessing useage. 

> 
> Sadly, people using Linux can be just as oriented towards "bigger faster
> latest", so they often do get the new kind on the block just to see
> what it's like.  

And many do not. Many people install Linux on many computers from a single
distribution. That is why market share (when properly used)

> That's why there is often a "hot" distribution that 
> is "hot" until another distribution comes along to knock it to "cold".

So? Many distributions have shown a long and steady growth. That growth is
driven not by what is hot but by what best meets needs. 

> People drop a distribution on a whim and move to another one simply
> because everyone else is using it.

The fact that /*some*/ people do switch distros does not mean they are not
Linux user, it does show why using market share (when the term is properly
used) is an invalid for determining actual Linux useage, which was my
original point "Market share is not equal to popularity"

> 
> Those people would rather fiddle with the (admittedly small)
> differences between distributions rather than work at getting good
> at one, and figuring out how small the differences between distributions
> are.
> 
> ANd of course, plenty 

And plenty of people dump the MS software that comes with their PC without
ever using it. Again, you are making the same case I made, market share is
an INVALID method of determining Linux useage. 

> of people using some other operating system may 
> sample a distribution, again likely a "hot" one, but never keep it
> installed, instead remaining with their original operating system.

And people may buy a PC with windows installed (because they have no other
choice of installed OS from the vendor). Again, you have supported my claim
that market share (properly defined) is not a valid method determining
Linux useage, THANK YOU!

> 
> The only real way of knowing "market share" 

Is by determine the /*_sales_*/ of Linux, but as you have pointed out,
"market share" (when using the term properly) is not a valid method of
determining actual useage. (market share is not the same as useage, no
matter how you try to redefine the term)

> is by knowing everyone 
> who is using Linux, and polling them to find out which distribution
> they are actually using on a day to day basis.


Of course that is not what the data posted represents. So, you agree, the
data posted is not a valid reflection of the popularity of Linux. 




> 
>   Michael

-- 
Because I am tired of google trolls, I have started blocking all usenet
posts from Google. Have fun Ethan, Tina, Maureen, or whatever name you
chose to go by. 

left_coast wrote:
> Michael Black wrote:
> 
> 
>>>Market share is not equal to popularity. Since a single download of Linux
>>>can be installed on as many computers as the user wants then passed along
>>>to someone else, the standard "market share" concept of units sold
>>>understate Linux popularity.
>>>
>>
>>I think in the context of "free" software, popularity is market share.
>>If peope aren't using it, then it can't be popular.  You're more thinking
>>of "sales", and yes, the number of distributions bought or sold may
>>not reflect how much secondary propagation that initial sale does.
> 
> 
> Sorry, but "market share" has a very specific definition that deals with
> SALES.

had... that dealt. Only with software is it possible to give away products. 
This began, I believe, with Stallman's Free Software Foundation. For the time 
being, what you call "browsing 'habits'" seems to be the only way to determine 
how many people use Linux on the desktop.

And one out of 200 seems pretty optimist if I look at how many people use 
Linux around here. The figures in Germany, Norway or Portugal must help quite 
a bit...

If you'd like to think, as this guy at the Linux Counter, that 142605
registered users equals Twenty-nine million users, you can keep on dreaming. 
But if you check the graph on the homepage(1), you'll see that the number of 
Linux users has not increased much since 2002. The number of computer users 
having increased a lot since that time -- nowadays you can get an Acer 
comptuter with a LCD screen for around $500 US -- it's very likely that the 
percentage of Linux users has decreased a lot.

(1) http://counter.li.org/

But the nice thing is that you have 350 distros for this 0.47% of users. Isn't 
it a wonderful development model?

Yugo writes:
> Only with software is it possible to give away products. This began, I
> believe, with Stallman's Free Software Foundation.

You believe incorrectly.

> For the time being, what you call "browsing 'habits'" seems to be the
> only way to determine how many people use Linux on the desktop.

It would be quite possible (but expensive) to determine this by survey
research.  IBM and Microsoft have probably done such surveys, but they are
not about to publish the results.

> If you'd like to think, as this guy at the Linux Counter, that 142605
> registered users equals Twenty-nine million users, you can keep on
> dreaming. But if you check the graph on the homepage(1), you'll see that
> the number of Linux users has not increased much since 2002.

All of his numbers and graphs are utterly worthless.

> ...nowadays you can get an Acer comptuter with a LCD screen for around
> $500 US...

And you can get a computer with Linux pre-installed from WalMart.

> ...it's very likely that the percentage of Linux users has decreased a
> lot.

You have no basis for that conclusion.

> ...0.47% of users.

Nor for that number.

> Isn't it a wonderful development model?

We find it excellent.  So do IBM, the city of Munich, Extremadura province,
NASA, the US DoD, and many others.
-- 
John Hasler 
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

Yugo wrote:

> left_coast wrote:
>> Michael Black wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>>Market share is not equal to popularity. Since a single download of
>>>>Linux can be installed on as many computers as the user wants then
>>>>passed along to someone else, the standard "market share" concept of
>>>>units sold understate Linux popularity.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I think in the context of "free" software, popularity is market share.
>>>If peope aren't using it, then it can't be popular.  You're more thinking
>>>of "sales", and yes, the number of distributions bought or sold may
>>>not reflect how much secondary propagation that initial sale does.
>> 
>> 
>> Sorry, but "market share" has a very specific definition that deals with
>> SALES.
> 
> had... that dealt. 

Had? How has it changed? As much as you want it to change, it has not. 
> Only with software is it possible to give away 
> products.

It is possible to give away any product. As a promotion, a car company can
giveaway a number of free cars... any product can be given away. Another
example is to give away a cellphone to intice people to buy a cellphone
service plan. Your claim is flawed. 

> This began, I believe, with Stallman's Free Software Foundation. 

Nope, it began with the first software that came with the hardware. 

> For the time being, what you call "browsing 'habits'" seems to be the only
> way to determine how many people use Linux on the desktop.

That does not make it an accurate, reliable or desirable number. In many
ways, inaccurate numbers are worse than no numbers at all. 

> 
> And one out of 200 seems pretty optimist if I look at how many people use
> Linux around here. 

Personal observations are worse than using browser habits. Using such a
limited perspective just shows how desperate you are. 

> The figures in Germany, Norway or Portugal must help 
> quite a bit...
> 
> If you'd like to think, as this guy at the Linux Counter, that 142605
> registered users equals Twenty-nine million users, you can keep on
> dreaming. 

I don't make ANY claim about how many desktop users there are because there
is no reliable way for YOU, me or anyone else to determine. If you can't
deal with that, it is your problem. The simple fact is, you have no
accurate information to backup any claim about Linux desktop useage. 

> But if you check the graph on the homepage(1), you'll see that 
> the number of Linux users has not increased much since 2002.

Sorry, but that only shows the number of people that registered at that
site, to say that represents "number of Linux users" is a wrong and as
idiotic as your claim that only software can be given away. 

> The number of 
> computer users having increased a lot since that time -- nowadays you can
> get an Acer comptuter with a LCD screen for around $500 US -- it's very
> likely that the percentage of Linux users has decreased a lot.
> 
> (1) http://counter.li.org/

Only shows people that have REGISTERED at that site, in statistical terms,
it would not be considered an accurate gage of actual Linux use. 

as the people at Linux counter points out "Thus, the only way to "know" the
number of Linux users worldwide, is to make a guess,"

> 
> But the nice thing is that you have 350 distros for this 0.47% of users.
> Isn't it a wonderful development model?

Since Linux counter only represents people that have registered at Linux
counter and not Linux usage as a whole, any claim that it accurately
represents is simply false.

It seems you are quite desperate to bash Linux to make such false claims as
"had..." "Only with software is it possible to give away products." (a
truly idiotic claim). If you do not have accurate numbers to back up your
claim, your claims are meaningless. 


-- 
Because I am tired of google trolls, I have started blocking all usenet
posts from Google. Have fun Ethan, Tina, Maureen, or whatever name you
chose to go by. 

left_coast wrote:

> It is possible to give away any product. As a promotion, a car company can
> giveaway a number of free cars... any product can be given away.

Is Linux given away as a promotion?

> Another
> example is to give away a cellphone to intice people to buy a cellphone
> service plan.

What are you expected to buy when you download Linux? You're an idiot. EOT

Yugo wrote:

> left_coast wrote:
> 
>> It is possible to give away any product. As a promotion, a car company
>> can giveaway a number of free cars... any product can be given away.
> 
> Is Linux given away as a promotion?

Yes. 

> 
>> Another
>> example is to give away a cellphone to intice people to buy a cellphone
>> service plan.
> 
> What are you expected to buy when you download Linux? 

SERVICES. 

> You're an idiot. EOT 

Just because you don't understand Linux and use invalid arguments does not
make me an idiot. 

-- 
Because I am tired of google trolls, I have started blocking all usenet
posts from Google. Have fun Ethan, Tina, Maureen, or whatever name you
chose to go by. 

Yugo wrote:
> And one out of 200 seems pretty optimist if I look at how many people use
> Linux around here.

left_coast writes:
> Personal observations are worse than using browser habits. Using such a
> limited perspective just shows how desperate you are.

Indeed.  If I look around here Linux usage (on the desktop and everywhere
else) is 100%.  If I look at people I know well enough to know what they
use it is over 50%.  However, I am not so stupid as to think that those
samples are representative of the world.
-- 
John Hasler 
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

Yugo writes:
> Is Linux given away as a promotion?

Frequently.

> What are you expected to buy when you download Linux?

Service.

> You're an idiot.

And now we know what you are.
-- 
John Hasler 
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

Yugo wrote:

> 
> "We use a unique methodology for collecting this data.  We collect
> data from the browsers of site visitors to our exclusive on demand
> network of small to
> medium enterprise live stats customers.  The sample size for these
> sites is
> more than 40,000 urls and growing.  The information published is an
> aggregate
> of the data from this network of hosted website statistics.  The site
> unique visitor and referral information is summarized on a monthly
> basis."
> 
> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/

And you believe those stats? More fool you! Surely, you must know that
browser statistics are so flawed that only very basic trends can be
attributed to them. See here for an explanation:

http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm

And I see your stats link and raise you:

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
http://extremetracking.com/open;sys?login=kwstats

As you can see the 'market share' of linux is between 3-6%. Clear proof
that Linux is up and coming.

You also need to realise that these stats are very desktop oriented and
completely ignore the server arena, which Linux/Unix has a majority
'market share'.

Only one of the top ten web hosters uses Windows:
<http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2006/09/06/three_hosters_share_most_reliable_hoster_in_august.html>

Apache has >60% of the server market share:
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2006/09/05/september_2006_web_server_survey.html

And as we all know Apache is mainly hosted on Linux. If it weren't for
'free' software the internet would be half the size it is now.

Yugo wrote:
> What are you expected to buy when you download Linux? You're an idiot.
> EOT

And that just confirms my initial suspicion that you're troll!

Yugo wrote:

> For the time
> being, what you call "browsing 'habits'" seems to be the only way to
> determine how many people use Linux on the desktop.

Like I said elsewhere Linux mainly isn't on the desktop. You try using
the internet without going via a Linux host and get back to us.

Chris wrote:
> Yugo wrote:
> 
>> For the time
>> being, what you call "browsing 'habits'" seems to be the only way to
>> determine how many people use Linux on the desktop.
> 
> Like I said elsewhere Linux mainly isn't on the desktop. You try using
> the internet without going via a Linux host and get back to us.

Not necessarily a PC Linux or even Linux at all.

Unix/Ultrix/SUNOS/FreeBSD/Linux are what runs inside MOST Internet 
hardware..but its not all Intel based and its not all PC based either,.

*nix juts happens to be the easiest way to get a mutltitasking bit of 
hardware working at medium speeds. Obviously for blinding speed you tend 
to write your own OS anyway. Not hard for a small box if you have a 
hardware emulator.

Another skewing factor is the supply of a copy of the opposition's 
offering on each new computer sold.  This is part of the package.  Most 
people will accept that package as part of the price, and then throw 
that piece of software away.  I have.  But as a result that count is 
skewed incorrectly.  It would be interesting when comparing the 
'popularity' of Linux and that other stuff, if that other stuff 
indicated how much of their count is of 'OEM' origin.

Ross

left_coast wrote:
> Yugo wrote:
> 
> 
>>Chris wrote:
>>
>>
>>>(K/X)ubuntu is the darling of the Linux comunity at the moment as very
>>>popular and well supported. However, with no sales or registration or
>>>'activation' requirements with free software it's very difficult to get
>>>absolute numbers on 'popularity'.
>>
>>But you can get the popularity of Linux on the desktop as a whole right
>>here:
>>
>>http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2
>>
>>Rather interesting... Of course, one must understand that Linux started
>>only 15 years ago on a fundation that certainly wasn't as solid as MS-DOS.
>>So there's some catching up to be done. The only thing we can be sure of
>>is that the development model is absolutely perfect: usability is
>>excellent and documentation is godsent.
> 
> 
> Market share is not equal to popularity. Since a single download of Linux
> can be installed on as many computers as the user wants then passed along
> to someone else, the standard "market share" concept of units sold
> understate Linux popularity. 
>