Slashdot Mirror
Attempts to Count Linux Users Remain Pointless
An anonymous reader writes "A great deal of attention is paid to numbers, but rarely does one actually ask what these numbers mean. One problem that many people have been trying to tackle is gauging the extent of use of Free software, including Linux. Questionnaires are not a solution here and neither are statistics, which are usually derived from the wrong data. The following article looks at the various challenges at hand and concludes that the growth rate of Linux is likely to remain an enigma."
"Do not attempt to count the number of Linux users, thats impossible, instead, try to realize the truth... there is no Linux" :-P
-Yourmomisfasterthanabeowulfcluster
World domination is at hand!
Deleted
well I skimmed TFA and conclude we can now expect in these comments:-
.. and nobody being better informed at then end of it.
(1) a lot of foaming at the mouth rants and statistics from Linux evangelists
(2) some distie bashing thrown in for good measure
(3) the inevitable vista comments and hints about massive marketing campaigns
(4) maybe some mention of PCs shipped with Linux pre-installed
(5) if we are really lucky maybe the odd referenced fact
A "Linux user" could be anything from a hardcore Gentoo-compiling mad man of a Linux user to somebody who uses a phone or other device which has embedded Linux. I for one dual boot so for purposes of this attempt at a survey am I half of a linux user? I use several devices with embedded Linux distros so am I 80% Linux user? Does the device need to be capable of browsing to a webpage or (as is cliche on /.) does it just have to run Linux?
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
I'm going to offer the same solution I did for counting Firefox users:
1) Require a national ID number to download any Linux distro, and validation of ownership of this number through an in-person meeting with the local authorities.
2) Have the software "phone home" that it's actually being used, when it's used.
3) Close the source so that 2) can be facilitated.
4) Made the ID numbers and contact information in 1) publicly available so anyone can audit the official count of users.
There, done, you've got everyone counted. Wasn't that easy?
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Anyone else? Or shall we approximate the linux userbase size as being "1"?
There is nothing interesting going on at my blog
It might not be entirely pointless to try, but I'm reasonably convinced of two things: I don't care (and don't need to) about the exact numbers, and it's growing.
I don't care largely because the software meets *my* needs. That's the most important thing to me. An assurance that it will continue to do so is also nice, and there are clearly a lot of people developing for it. I'm not worried on that front. People who have a big investment in *other people* using Linux (especially when said other people aren't developers) confuse me. (Well, except when they're trying to sell Linux software / services.)
It's growing. I can't tell you how much, but I can offer the anecdotal evidence that the responses I get to "I run Linux" have changed over the past few years. It's not always "What's that?" anymore. It's not uncommon to get questions about it in response -- people want to know how well it works, whether it runs the same software as Windows, etc. I just answer their questions and am polite and friendly about it.
I, for one, use GNU/Linux and only F/OSS
Where shall we mail your trophy?
Take a sample of 10000 people / companies.
Ask them if they use Linux of not
Extrapolate the results.
Seems to work when there counting all kinds of other things that don't have a direct method of counting them.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
That's a good way to start a Monday :-).
Actually, it's not so much that they are pointless - just that they are useless. There is a point to knowing how many Linux boxes are out there (demographic studies, confidence in support longevity as a function of install base, etc.) But most known techniques for counting remain useless.
To be honest, this might be just as well. Any technology that COULD count successfully all the Linux boxes out there would be a bit scary - many people probably don't WANT anyone to be able to know what they are running. (OK so nmap can probably figure out anyway...)
Large scale counts like this are a difficult proposition - the only things that approaches being successful in this respect are probably automobile registration systems, census systems, and the tax system - in other words, massive systems with compulsary reporting for every existing component member.
Now, of more interest might be to work with the BSA for a while (or someone else who has the authority to open random IT doors at random) and do an anonymous study of deployment percentages at random under guise of a random license check or soemthing. Probably (hopefully!) not legal but it would be a way to get statistically meaningful results if the sample was chosen well.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
and we'll conclude 18% of the world uses the CowboyNeal Microthreaded Kernel fork of Planet Nine
That's the whole problem. If I count home and work, I have more than 20 linux "servers" of which one is a cluster containing twice that many machines. But I'm the only person who uses them (well, the only person who directly uses them, e.g. logs into them), so really, in terms of users that's just 1...You can't count everyone who goes to a webpage, or uses a bind, ntp, samba, squid, etc service to be a linux user.
That's why it's hard to count. Windows users are easy: it's almost all 1 to 1. I have 1 windows machine, so mark me down for 1 in the windows category as well. You can be even more specific and count windows licenses; this is misleading...My workplace has a great number of unused windows licenses...But it's a good number with documentation behind it, whereas linux can only count support contracts with big linux vendors.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.