Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> The racist, liar and software thief Gary Stewart (flatfish) nymshifted:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:47:47 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The racist, liar and software thief Gary Stewart (flatfish) nymshifted:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:28:21 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The racist, liar and software thief Gary Stewart (flatfish)
>>>>>>> nymshifted:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> < snip >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like the Gartner Group? "Oh, we see oodles of merit in the SCO
>>>>>>>>>>>>> case!"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet when Gartner writes a pro-Linux article you Linux loons are
>>>>>>>>>>>> all over it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Same goes for the Guardian, Infoworld, PCweek etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a bunch of hypocrites.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, you do see "oodles of merit in the SCO case"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No I don't.
>>>>>>>>>> I think the entire thing is a sham.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My point is that when a pro Linux article is written by a major
>>>>>>>>>> rag, you
>>>>>>>>>> seem to ignore and forget all the negative stuff that rag wrote
>>>>>>>>>> in the past.
>>>>>>>>>> But when they write a negative Linux article all of a sudden that
>>>>>>>>>> particular rag is now satan.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not you specifically, but COLA nuts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's hypocritical.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You mean like the so often mentioned "stats" which "prove" that
>>>>>>>>> linux has "insert random figure below 1%" market share.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, those things often get mentioned by idiots
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Like the BBC?
>>>>>>>> They have Linux at around 0.8 percent.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If all of these stats are wrong Peter, explain to me how the vast
>>>>>>>> majority seem to agree with each other no matter the source?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do they *prove* Linux desktop usage is below 1 percent?
>>>>>>>> No, but it seems plausible to conclude that since the same numbers
>>>>>>>> keep coming up there has to be some truth in it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, that simply *has* to be the reason why google (easily the one
>>>>>>> company which is used across the board by a lot of different user
>>>>>>> types, regardless of OS) has dropped their desktop stats figures.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As they did not prove anything and where so unreliable to be
>>>>>>> unuseable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Google is a Linux whore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course they dropped their stats.
>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linux showed up as less than 1 percent on their stats as well and
>>>>>> Google can't have that spread around now can it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Idiot
>>>>
>>>> I didn't think you would be able to answer that Peter Kohlmann.
>>>
>>> I *did* answer it, flatfish. I called you an "idiot" for a reason
>>>
>>>> Now why not head back to the bunker and short your bullet collection or
>>>> something.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your "theory" about googles reasons to drop the stats easily shatter any
>>> existing "completely idiotic" or just plain imbecile mark for
>>> presented "theories" so far. Even Hadron Quark could not present a dumber
>>> reasoning than you just did
>>
>> I could try?
>>
>> Get WronG to provide one. I could do with a laugh. Or better yet, Mark
>> Kent if you have the time to wade through pages of complete and utter
>> bullshit.
>>
>> I would suggest Rick as he is pretty clueless, but his heart is in the
>> right place and needs to be cut some slack.
>
> So you don't have a clue either, just like flatfish?
> I am shocked. Really.
I don't care. I go by what I see - and Linux on the desktop will be a
dead duck until things like OO start to work properly. It is well under
1% IMO.
|
|
