OSNews

and
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
linux 3.5% ...

What's your point besides showing off statistics?

I like the quote at the end of the page:
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
Benjamin Disraeli

Still to low.

I think exist the truth, the uncomfortable truth and stadistics.

and
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
linux 3.5% ...

w3schools is of interest to geeks, not general public. Just like, for example, OSNews.com. It is expected to see more Linux users there.

If you want to be realistic, then look at some site that gets visited by all types of users. MySpace, Google, CNN, BBC, NBA, Yahoo.. would all be better examples. You will not have more than 1% of Linux users on those sites.

For example, I don't see my father visiting w3schools any time soon, yet I know he uses Google News on a regular basis.

What's the methodology? If it's gathered from sites that have a more Windows focus or depend heavily on Windows Technologies, of course they'll show Windows is more popular. I'd trust Google's Browser statistics a bit more. I don't have the current stats, but in 2004, it was pegged at 1%, which is pretty respectable considering that most of the *real* desktop work has only happened in the last few years:
http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist/zeitgeist-jun04.html

W3Schools and Mihaiu (don't know anything about them) has Linux pegged at 3.5% and 6.5%. Both are bit high for my expectations, but it does go to show that there are places in the world where Linux is more popular than others.
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
http://www.mihaiu.name/operating-system-search-engine-browser-stati...

In my city, I'd peg it at 2%. Linux is pretty popular here, especially at University. We even have a Linux Cafe and all computer and electronics stores seem to at least heard about Linux and have someone on staff that can handle Linux related questions. Most people, however, just use whatever's in front of them, and in most cases, it's Windows.

What's the methodology?

Lets see. Google had Linux at 1% (probably less but they rounded up to take pity on the Linux base) in June 2004.

W3Cschools had Linux at 2.9% in the same month.

Because Google is so ubiquitious, and more likely to favor Linux over people using MSN search, my methodology says W3C schools overrepresents Linux usage by 3x.

On W3C Schools Linux grew from 2.9 to 3.5.

My methodology would conclude Linux usage would be 1.2% max on google today.

Since the deals OSS companies like Firefox make with Google would overrepresent Linux, I conclude .4% is a realistic number.

And places like OneStat and others confirm that .4%.

Ok. .36% on onestat.

http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox46-operating-systems-ma...

"Win95 has double the market share of Linux. "
"Win ME has quadruple the share of Linux. "

And you think those are better operating systems than current state of Linux ?

You've just proved to yourself that Microsoft's monopoly has nothing to do with the quality of their products.

If you hate Linux and open-source so much, why do you even bother leaving comments in these Linux threads?

Oh I know... to irritate people. Correct?

It's obvious, isn't it? You don't read up on a topic unless you have some interest in it, so he's likely interested in Linux and/or Ubuntu (or is so bored with his life that he reads anything and responds to anything to pass the time). Assuming the former, he'd like to switch or wants Linux to be an option for him if Microsoft continues down it's path of treating people like second class citizens, but he doesn't yet feel comfortable with it or has grown so cynical with the Windows culture or seen how Windows beat out superior products time and time again that he doesn't feel things could ever change. So he's resigned himself to justifying the cynicism.

As someone that left Linux in 1996 for Windows and then returned in 2001, I can definitely relate to that point of view. The only thing I can say is that from my experience, the best way to fight cynicism is not to fight it -- just be open to the good and the bad. Linux's openness won me back (and Microsoft's arrogance helped push me the rest of the way). Linux has it's warts. So does Windows -- if you use it at work or work near a help desk, you know at least a half dozen horror stories. Even MacOSX does too (e.g. if your desktop is read only and your app tries to put things on the desktop you'll get a really cryptic error message and have no idea how to fix it unless you've dealt with this issue before). Most of us turn a blind eye to the warts in our OS or gotten used to them or developed hack workarounds since if we don't, we'd be complaining all day. The important thing to point out to anyone investigating Linux is that if you use Linux, do things *the Linux way* and not *the Windows way* or *the Mac way*, since if you try to make Linux something its not you'll get frustrated. The same can be said about Linux or Mac users that try to use Windows or Linux and Windows users who use a Mac.

If you're frustrated with Linux, then either you're using a distro that's too techie for your abilities or tastes or you're unknowingly carrying your old habits (or expectations) into Linux and are fighting the OS when you really don't need to (in nearly all cases). Because these days, unless you have very Windows specific needs, Linux is a fairly comfortable OS to work in.

"Win95 has double the market share of Linux. "
"Win ME has quadruple the share of Linux. "

And you think those are better operating systems than current state of Linux ?

You've just proved to yourself that Microsoft's monopoly has nothing to do with the quality of their products.

No, what those figures just prove is what really matter to people when it comes to operating systems are two thing: first, they want something they don't have to mess much with in order for it two work, and second, they want to have every application under the sun (including games) available for that system.

Why some people just can't get those two simple facts through their head is beyond me. Windows 9x was a crappy line of OS but it managed to give people that, and they would still be massively used today if XP did not exist because of those two reasons. No Linux distribution can match that yet.

This statistic cannot be used to accurately measure Linux installations, because:

a) most Linux browsers masquerade the OS as something else, and

b) the percentage of Linux users with broadband is much higher than for Windows, which means a smaller overall number of connecting IP addresses (broadband connections keep the same IP much longer than dial-up).

Not only that, but the actual contents of the website will skew the results. This is the reason Google took out the OS survey from their Zeitgest, because it was simply inaccurate and under-represented Linux/*nix desktops.

This statistic cannot be used to accurately measure Linux installations, because:

a) most Linux browsers masquerade the OS as something else,

Evidence?

and

b) the percentage of Linux users with broadband is much higher than for Windows, which means a smaller overall number of connecting IP addresses (broadband connections keep the same IP much longer than dial-up).

Evidence? (I mean evidence that you understand how page requests are logged?)

Not only that, but the actual contents of the website will skew the results. This is the reason Google took out the OS survey from their Zeitgest, because it was simply inaccurate and under-represented Linux/*nix desktops.

Evidence?

Come on. The sooner you accept Linux "installed base" is trivial, the sooner you can leave the cult and get a real life.

Well, there is:

- South America
- Africa
- Middle East
- China
- Russia
- Japan

Linux is gaining market share especially in South America, Africa, and in China.

So, no, I don't think Mark Shuttleworth is overoptimistic in any way. I like the way Linus Torvalds described it: Linux may not not conquer the desktop today, maybe not even tomorrow, but it is going to hapen.

Edited 2006-11-19 10:02