Hadron <hadronquark@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> ____/ Mart van de Wege on Sunday 04 January 2009 13:28 : \____
>>
>>> OK <otto@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 16:04:18 -0600, Terry Porter
>>>> <linux-2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 16:32:21 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.howstuffworks.com/question246.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>> Popularity graph:
>>>>>
>>> <snip stats>
>>>>
>>>> Wow, stats from a wopping 3000 hits... is that a year's worth of
>>>> visitors on your site, or two years perhaps?
>>>>
>>>> Go, Linux, Go!!!
>>>>
>>>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=9&qpcustom=Linux
>>>
>>> But Terry gives his source and raw data, so we can verify *his* stats.
>>>
>>> That link you give that keeps getting bandied about does no such
>>> thing, so its numbers *are* suspect.
>>>
>>> Yes, even if they show Microsoft share dropping. Any statistics quoted
>>> should be assumed to be lies unless the source gives you access to the
>>> raw data and methodology used.
>>
<snip>
>>
>> The 'study' ('survey') cited by the trolls is flawed by design. Always check
>> the methods; they don't want to conceal that embarrassment.
>
> Yet your trojan infected site is? LOL!
>
> Their study was a non biased hit count on OS agnostic sites. I think we
> know who is to be trusted.
So, tell me, Quack, where do the good folks from hitlink tell us what
sites exactly are tested and how?
Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
|
|
