Page 7 of 17 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 168

Thread: Future of my support for ATI

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    67

    Default

    me262> Windows is just too insecure and unstable for the hard,
    me262> rigorous requirements of Offense/Defense government agencies
    me262> (DOD for example),

    True, but that doesn't stop the idiots from trying:

    http://www.slothmud.org/~hayward/mic_humor/nt_navy.html

    (That's just the first hit from google, there's plenty more.)

    -------------------

    bridgman> Only one person asked if I got her phone number.

    Phone number? How quant. Did you get her email address?

    bridgman> Everyone else asked what distro she ran at home.

    So what OS does she run at home? (The best OSes don't have
    "distros".)

    -------------------

    Dragonlord> Furthermore do you count in the millions of servers
    Dragonlord> running Un*x? They do not produce "Browser Hits"...
    Dragonlord> they get 'em

    rbmorse> They don't buy video cards, either.

    Apparently some servers do use GPUs. I forget what they were
    doing with them, maybe GPGPU.

    -------------------

    bridgman> Regarding video playback, have you tried the open source
    bridgman> drivers on your 1650 recently ? Alex put a lot of work into
    bridgman> adding good EXA render support and Textured Video (which
    bridgman> works nicely even under Compiz) and that is now available
    bridgman> on both the radeonhd and radeon drivers. The only missing
    bridgman> thing in the framework right now is a good vsync solution
    bridgman> in the compositor but that is being worked on.

    XvMC?

    BTW, is there any hope for sync-on-green support?

  2. #62
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Round up of all desktop marketshare stats can be found here along with the growth rates.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_s...rating_systems

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,731

    Default

    yeah, but that are still browser stats, aren't they? (also wikipedia...). I know that I had to set my brother to IE on windows for some sites and usually forgot to set it back afterwards for a while...

  4. #64
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by energyman View Post
    yeah, but that are still browser stats, aren't they? (also wikipedia...). I know that I had to set my brother to IE on windows for some sites and usually forgot to set it back afterwards for a while...
    Sure it's wikipedia, but it does have all the corresponding links. As far as browsers go, the effect of browser agents is minimal. You could also argue the fact that how many of those linux clients are running in a VM on windows.
    Last edited by deanjo; 08-04-2008 at 01:30 PM.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Bulgaria
    Posts
    269

    Default

    All in all the linux statistics look shitty. Scarry how bad they actually look!

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    833

    Default

    Whoever had lectures on PES ( Probability and Empirical Statistics ) knows that you can proof anything and nothing with statistics. You just have to ask the right people the right questions. Hence those stats are as insightful as a bag full of poo.

    Bottem line is that Linux is far more used than people think. I see this on how often people ask to use Linux or have a Linux specific question.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonlord View Post
    I see this on how often people ask to use Linux or have a Linux specific question.
    And this is going by the questions posted where? As far as people going "Well I know XXX amount of people running XXX OS" proves nothing as people who tend to have similar views and points tend to associate with people that have the same views and points as well. Browser stats are probably the most reliable source we have as people generally don't "surf the net" on a OS that is not their primary OS. Fanboy site stat counters are useless as well as again, people that go to those sites are generally the ones using XXX OS.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    833

    Default

    Browser hits can be generated by anything from a user down to bots. Doesn't sound very representative to me.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    None of those stats have any value, first of all they simply cannot account for the fact that most linux users are smart enough to run with no-script, or another similar protection in place. Also it doesnt accout for any sort of proxy or firewall... I'm sorry but any statistics gathered by page hits is flawed.

    I'd be willing to bet that a --hell-- of alot more linux users run no-script then windows users, and additionally a far greater percentage will be running a properly configured firewall, or proxy. which makes OS identification impossible. The perfect example of the point I'm trying to make can be proved with nmap. Use nmap to try and identify what OS your running, provided that you have a properly configured firewall it cant do it.

    Not to mention that a good chunk of the linux market are running on thin clients in an office somewhere with no web access.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,731

    Default

    @deanjo well I don't search for the people. If someone moves in he comes to me to get internet access (or one of my two colleagues). And i ask which OS they use to help them setting it up. And almost all are Xp, some Vista, very few linux, only one MacOSX so far. In years

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •