Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 2nd Nov 2009 23:59 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 392743
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.
RE[3]: Linux has reached the 90% market share
by strcpy on Wed 4th Nov 2009 20:33
in reply to "RE[2]: Linux has reached the 90% market share"
Really?? So if my web browser identification string does not show the OS, my count is invalid (or do they then simply assume Windows). If my browser identification string is "faked" so that some idiotic website can work and not block me, that count is incorrect as well.
Very accurate - NOT!
You should recap the elementary statistics a little.
With big enough sample, browsers that do not show identification are just white nose.
RE[4]: Linux has reached the 90% market share
by boldingd on Wed 4th Nov 2009 22:05
in reply to "RE[3]: Linux has reached the 90% market share"
To say nothing about the question at hand, size alone is not a sufficient guarantor of the representativeness of a sample. Even very large samples can fail to be representative of the population from which they are drawn; equally, smaller samples can be more representative if carefully constructed. Larger is probably better, but it is not a sufficient condition to guarantee representativeness on its own. So, "it was big!" is not a valid answer to someone who questions whether the sample population was representative; big can still be wrong.







Member since:
2006-11-13
Really?? So if my web browser identification string does not show the OS, my count is invalid (or do they then simply assume Windows). If my browser identification string is "faked" so that some idiotic website can work and not block me, that count is incorrect as well.
Very accurate - NOT!