Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Fri 15th Aug 2008 04:15 UTC, submitted by computerishcat
Thread beginning with comment 326976
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.





Member since:
2007-02-17
Only one of the many Linux installs I have done are taking the place of a Windows install. Normally I buy an "update kit" (motherboard, case with power supply, memory and CPU) and I add a blank hard disk, optical drive, and video card (if I didn't already have these) ... then I install Linux from a liveCD. It costs about half of the price of an equivalent Vista box from the store, it takes no longer after purchase to assemble and set up with all your required applications, and it is three or four times as functional.
The only install I have done to "replace" a Windows install is on a refurbished (second hand) laptop ... even then I got the supplier to wipe the disk of Windows prior to delivery and I got $50 off the price!
A similar approach sort-of works for firefox update ... except that many Linux users get firefox (or perhaps iceweasle) via their distribution's repository, and hence cannot use "firefox update". Firefox's own figures would then tend to show a far heavier use of the Windows version of firefox than any other version as a result. Perhaps unique IP addresses accessing the firefox extensions page?
Even then, in just my domestic situation, there are four (sometimes five) machines using the same IP address via NAT.
This same problem would affect your method, even if updates were not being cached.