On May 13, 3:02 pm, Hadron <hadronqu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Sinister Midget III <a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>
>
> > On 2009-05-13, Miguel de Icaza <miguel.de.ic...@xxxxxxxxx> claimed:
> >> Hello,
>
> >>> > I do not think that Linux on the desktop is keeping folks at Microsoft
> >>> > awake at night. Our market share is still very small, we are deeply
> >>> > fragmented and our quality control is terrible.
>
> >>> Speak for yourself.
>
> >> It does not matter what my experience or yours is. What matters are
> >> the actual market share numbers. Linux is still tiny.
>
> > Market share is a measure of sales. Linux sales won't reach the levels
> > of the monopoly's sales probably ever. Because a large chunk of linux
> > use isn't through the sales floor.
>
> > Nobody can evaluate the real numbers with the hope of any accuracy. But
> > even modest attempts have it used multiples over what sales would
> > suggest.
>
> Only if you're an idiot as you clearly are.
>
> The rest of us read market share as the relative figures of Linux v
> Windows v Mac installations. And clearly Linux is much less than, say,
> 2%.
I think that's how most people read it - but, it actually isn't the
proper definition. Technically, he is correct according to the real
definition of market share. What most people think of market share,
is actually installed base.
--
Tom Shelton
|
|
