On Feb 6, 10:10 am, "Ezekiel" <z...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Rex Ballard" <rex.ball...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > On Feb 6, 6:48 am, George Kettleborough
> > <g.kettleboro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On 06/02/09 11:09, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> > When net applications was soliciting sites to be part of their
> > counter, it gave a pretty good clue as to why the counts are a bit
> > "off". The wanted sites to serve up this ActiveX control that would
> > got to user's browsers and count the individual users, sending the
> > stats to Net Applications' counter via http post requests.
> Prove it. You have zero proof of what Net Applications "wanted to do" and
> you spew this nonsense out over and over again.
It's a bit hard for me to try and give you the URL for a site that has
been taken down, isn't it? That's the problem with web sites. There
is no legal requirement to keep the archives available. This means we
can ALL rewrite history as many times as we want. A few years from
now, we might decide that everything Bush did was horrible and
criminal and that the guests at Guantanimo Bay were actually innocent
of ANY wrong-doing other than what Gearge Orwell called "Thought
Crimes" With no paper documents to refer back to, we might even erase
the Holocaust, the WTC bombing, and other "dark moments" of history.
The Net Applications statistics have been quoted on this newsgroup for
years. When they first came out, Net Applications was much more open
about their activities than they are today.
Other statistics such as those collected by Google, Yahoo, and
Microsoft are very private, and very expensive. Microsoft probably
wouldn't share their findings at all. On the other hand, they could
use their findings to create a company and survey that gave Microsoft
every possible technical and statistical advantage.
> > This of course is a problem because most people who use other browsers
> > use them because they don't want Active X invading their PCs all the
> > time.
> The real problem is that you post your random hallucinations here as
While it's possible to install ActiveX controls in FireFox, and even
on Linux systems (using crossover) it's also not that common.
Every one of the public surveys has a number of serious flaws, but I
do notice that the WinTrolls on COLA love to guote the one that gives
their champion (Microsoft Windows with IE) the highest score of any of
the available surveys, and gives Linux the lowest score of any of the
It's completely understandable why they would do that. It validates
their argument that nobody uses Linux therefore nobody should be
allowed to choose between Linux and Windows at the retail store. And
they should NEVER be allowed to chose BOTH Windows and Linux.