I disagree. Back when I was the sole IT guy for a factory, I figured about one fourth of my time was spent figuring out what licenses we had, which ones we needed, etc. The actual license costs are easily identified, but the admin time wasted dealing with licenses is not.
I subscribe to the TED channel in Miro, and it so happens that I watched this last night with my 11-year old son. I was impressed, but for me a better indicator of a product's viability is how my son perceives the product. He thought they were awesome.
You do realize that there are as many non-Mormons in Utah as Mormons, right?
Anyway, I think less of Phelps in terms of his financial acumen. His "recreational" drug use cost him millions in endorsements. That's one expensive bong hit.
The link you provide says this in the last paragraph:
"However, that share has been slowly ebbing away again over the past few months, as netbook manufacturers increasingly revert to Windows. Linux is now down to 0.83% - a modest increase of around 0.2% on the same time last year."
My point is that this "article" refers to stats from one source, and it happens to be the source that shows Mac in the best light and Linux in the worst, compared to other sources out there.
Fine. Consider it dropped. If it's cool with you, though, I will continue to use W3 Counter as it is not site specific, and I will continue to doubt Net Applications data since it is so far away from the rest.
Thank you for illustrating my original point (about believing everything you read). Hitslink.com is the only place that suggests Mac is near 10%. See here for a comparison.
What you are saying is that my reasoning is specious. You missed the point. I am saying that I have reason to believe that Linux usage is underreported. That all. The linked article references numbers from Net Applications that says Linux desktop usage has declined from 0.85% to 0.77%. Why should I believe that when other sources like OneStat, XiTi Monitor, W3Counter, and W3Schools place the number at 0.47%, 1.20%, 2.13%, and 3.8% respectively?
That there is such a disparity among reported sources causes me to doubt. That's it. And there is no pink lizard in your room.
I grow weary of people citing a single, dubious source and saying, "See! See! Linux has failed on the desktop." The problem is that the methodology for gaging adoption is almost always in the form of web trackers, and people have really bad assumptions about user and system behavior. For example:
The sample of websites used is non-scientific because they are paying for the tracking service.
The assumption is made that people using Linux are interested in the same things as everyone else.
There is a massive difference in reporting numbers based on the source of the data. Some claim Linux users are less than 1% of total traffic. Others claim more than 3%. (Similary, Mac is as low as 3% and as high as 9%.)
Linux users use browsers with pop-up blockers. A good many Windows users still don't use pop-up blockers, and every pop-up counts as a hit for a Windows user.
I could go on, but you get the idea. Don't believe everything you read.
Your line of reasoning, though appealing, is getting tired. From a business perspective it works like this: will Y dollars (using your notation) produce revenue > Y? If yes, spend Y dollars. Besides, X dollars can be viewed as a sunk cost, and that sunk cost includes a great deal of fixed costs (storyline development, artwork, maps etc.). In other words, the margin on Y is likely higher than on X, meaning potentially more profit from Y than might be expected.
Here, here, my anonymous brother. I taught secondary math for two and a half years because I couldn't take three. Every observation you make, I second.
I believe what you are missing here is the cost side of things. Sun is a software AND a hardware vendor. Margins are much thinner on hardware, meaning that Sun's $13B - [large cost] produces profits on par with Red Hat's $700M - [small cost] equation.
The makes me curious. If all Linux vendors had an equivalent of publicly traded market capitalization, what would their sum total be? Naturally it would be lower than Microsoft's $153B (as of this morning), but that isn't bad considering Linux can be had for free. (BTW, I remember back when msft's market cap was over $400B).
Slashdot Mirror
This will sound racist, but you should know I am part Native American:
Flipped
Over
Reservation
Decoration
Because that's how Microsoft rolls, and that's the problem with them.
I disagree. Back when I was the sole IT guy for a factory, I figured about one fourth of my time was spent figuring out what licenses we had, which ones we needed, etc. The actual license costs are easily identified, but the admin time wasted dealing with licenses is not.
I subscribe to the TED channel in Miro, and it so happens that I watched this last night with my 11-year old son. I was impressed, but for me a better indicator of a product's viability is how my son perceives the product. He thought they were awesome.
Now why did that pop into my head?
Are you, by any chance, a pink feline predator that wears a hat and tie?
Only if 100% of non-Mormons are cool with it. Or did you mean Mormons have the reasonable view?
You do realize that there are as many non-Mormons in Utah as Mormons, right?
Anyway, I think less of Phelps in terms of his financial acumen. His "recreational" drug use cost him millions in endorsements. That's one expensive bong hit.
Meh. That depends on your source. If you are referring to Net Applications data, disregard it. It is more likely 5% Mac, 2% Linux.
The link you provide says this in the last paragraph:
"However, that share has been slowly ebbing away again over the past few months, as netbook manufacturers increasingly revert to Windows. Linux is now down to 0.83% - a modest increase of around 0.2% on the same time last year."
My point is that this "article" refers to stats from one source, and it happens to be the source that shows Mac in the best light and Linux in the worst, compared to other sources out there.
Fine. Consider it dropped. If it's cool with you, though, I will continue to use W3 Counter as it is not site specific, and I will continue to doubt Net Applications data since it is so far away from the rest.
Is this a dig at the French? I am confused.
Thank you for illustrating my original point (about believing everything you read). Hitslink.com is the only place that suggests Mac is near 10%. See here for a comparison.
One can only assume a disproportionate number of bridges there.
What you are saying is that my reasoning is specious. You missed the point. I am saying that I have reason to believe that Linux usage is underreported. That all. The linked article references numbers from Net Applications that says Linux desktop usage has declined from 0.85% to 0.77%. Why should I believe that when other sources like OneStat, XiTi Monitor, W3Counter, and W3Schools place the number at 0.47%, 1.20%, 2.13%, and 3.8% respectively?
That there is such a disparity among reported sources causes me to doubt. That's it. And there is no pink lizard in your room.
Yeah, that's what I said. Idiot.
I could go on, but you get the idea. Don't believe everything you read.
So what does period3 mean?
Your line of reasoning, though appealing, is getting tired. From a business perspective it works like this: will Y dollars (using your notation) produce revenue > Y? If yes, spend Y dollars. Besides, X dollars can be viewed as a sunk cost, and that sunk cost includes a great deal of fixed costs (storyline development, artwork, maps etc.). In other words, the margin on Y is likely higher than on X, meaning potentially more profit from Y than might be expected.
Here, here, my anonymous brother. I taught secondary math for two and a half years because I couldn't take three. Every observation you make, I second.
I often rage for 100+ miles, but as I get older that is decreasing.
Or, at the very least, find that their chocolate bars have melted in their pockets.
I believe what you are missing here is the cost side of things. Sun is a software AND a hardware vendor. Margins are much thinner on hardware, meaning that Sun's $13B - [large cost] produces profits on par with Red Hat's $700M - [small cost] equation.
The makes me curious. If all Linux vendors had an equivalent of publicly traded market capitalization, what would their sum total be? Naturally it would be lower than Microsoft's $153B (as of this morning), but that isn't bad considering Linux can be had for free. (BTW, I remember back when msft's market cap was over $400B).
I assume "standby" means hibernate, not suspend due to the power required to refresh RAM. Or is Fujitsu introducing something with MRAM?