Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #2687 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Brendan Simon <Brendan@BrendanSimon.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-04-06 14:40 +1000 |
| Last post | 2011-04-07 06:43 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 102 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
Re: Python benefits over Cobra Brendan Simon <Brendan@BrendanSimon.com> - 2011-04-06 14:40 +1000
Re: Python benefits over Cobra harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-06 03:03 -0500
Re: Python benefits over Cobra Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-06 18:26 +1000
Re: Python benefits over Cobra Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-06 12:29 +0000
Re: Python benefits over Cobra Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-06 23:06 +1000
[OT] Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2011-04-07 07:50 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-07 00:03 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-07 07:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-07 11:33 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Mel <mwilson@the-wire.com> - 2011-04-07 17:15 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-08 05:55 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-10 21:49 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 00:53 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 01:36 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-12 03:53 -0500
Re: Free software versus software idea patents Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-04-12 13:32 -0400
Re: Free software versus software idea patents Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 11:44 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-04-12 15:39 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-11 09:10 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 11:17 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-11 22:28 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 15:55 -0700
Re: [even more OT than before] Arithmetic [was Free software versus software idea patents] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-12 11:34 +0000
Re: [even more OT than before] Arithmetic [was Free software versus software idea patents] geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 11:11 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2011-04-12 10:02 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-12 03:15 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 09:54 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-14 00:35 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 23:36 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-14 02:22 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 09:51 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-16 00:21 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 23:46 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Algis Kabaila <akabaila@pcug.org.au> - 2011-04-16 21:01 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-16 23:36 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-17 10:31 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-16 18:35 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-18 01:29 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-18 00:34 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-04-12 13:43 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-12 23:56 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 17:05 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-07 07:39 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-07 18:17 +1000
Re: Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) flebber <flebber.crue@gmail.com> - 2011-04-07 03:51 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-07 10:31 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Benjamin Kaplan <benjamin.kaplan@case.edu> - 2011-04-07 11:50 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Adam Tauno Williams <awilliam@whitemice.org> - 2011-04-07 13:55 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-07 14:37 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-08 01:30 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-08 01:37 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-09 23:55 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-10 19:04 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 10:18 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-10 20:48 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-10 21:01 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 11:26 -0600
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-12 04:22 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 06:59 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents CM <cmpython@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 10:48 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 11:13 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 15:56 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-14 00:50 -0500
Re: Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 23:38 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-14 02:29 -0500
Re: Free software versus software idea patents Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2011-04-14 08:42 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents CM <cmpython@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 09:48 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-15 23:27 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 13:37 -0600
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-12 23:45 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-14 01:04 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 19:15 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-14 14:02 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 00:11 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 13:46 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-15 02:21 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-04-14 22:52 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 13:50 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-04-14 21:36 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 08:01 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-04-14 22:13 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-15 01:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 15:23 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-04-14 22:55 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-15 02:09 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 12:31 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-04-14 22:43 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2011-04-14 14:20 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 02:28 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 10:49 -0600
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 13:51 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 15:05 -0600
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 03:31 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-08 01:41 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-08 07:14 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2011-04-08 09:10 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2011-04-09 07:45 +0100
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> - 2011-04-07 14:18 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2011-04-10 11:53 +1000
Re: Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) sturlamolden <sturlamolden@yahoo.no> - 2011-04-12 09:04 -0700
Re: Python benefits over Cobra harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-07 00:25 -0500
Re: Python benefits over Cobra Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-07 06:43 +0000
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-12 11:13 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.270.1302631987.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #3067 |
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 10:48 AM, CM <cmpython@gmail.com> wrote: >> I don't even know one person who has Win7 installed, running, and likes it... >> not even one. > > Hi, m harris, nice to meet you. Now you do. > > To the online community: Is there a name for trolling for A by > advocating for not-A in a way that discredits your point of view an > case so that A now seems much more reasonable? It's not really > "concern trolling". What would this be called? Harrisment. /I'm sorry, this is abuse... Geremy Condra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-12 15:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.292.1302648994.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #3067 |
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 11:13 -0700, geremy condra wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 10:48 AM, CM <cmpython@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I don't even know one person who has Win7 installed, running, and likes it... > >> not even one. > > > > Hi, m harris, nice to meet you. Now you do. > > > > To the online community: Is there a name for trolling for A by > > advocating for not-A in a way that discredits your point of view an > > case so that A now seems much more reasonable? It's not really > > "concern trolling". What would this be called? > > Harrisment. > > /I'm sorry, this is abuse... > > Geremy Condra That was harristerical.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 00:50 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <cWvpp.16306$Ay5.2987@newsfe07.iad> |
| In reply to | #3098 |
Westley Martínez wrote: >>>> I don't even know one person who has Win7 installed, running, and likes it... >>>> > >> not even one. >>> > > >>> > > Hi, m harris, nice to meet you. Now you do. >>> > > >>> > > To the online community: Is there a name for trolling for A by >>> > > advocating for not-A in a way that discredits your point of view an >>> > > case so that A now seems much more reasonable? It's not really >>> > > "concern trolling". What would this be called? >> > >> > Harrisment. >> > >> > /I'm sorry, this is abuse... >> > >> > Geremy Condra > That was harristerical. > Actually, it is funny... and I love humor as much as I love mathematics, software, and freedom. Truly harristerical... :) But on a serious note, I did wonder who would be the first jouster to offer the argumentum ad hominem? ... ah, sticks and stones... My major professor once told me, "You know you've won the argument when they start calling you names!" kind regards, m harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-13 23:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.350.1302763100.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #3179 |
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:50 PM, harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> wrote: > Westley Martínez wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I don't even know one person who has Win7 installed, running, and >>>>> likes it... >>>>> > >> not even one. >>>> >>>> > > >>>> > > Hi, m harris, nice to meet you. Now you do. >>>> > > >>>> > > To the online community: Is there a name for trolling for A by >>>> > > advocating for not-A in a way that discredits your point of view >>>> > an >>>> > > case so that A now seems much more reasonable? It's not really >>>> > > "concern trolling". What would this be called? >>> >>> > >>> > Harrisment. >>> > >>> > /I'm sorry, this is abuse... >>> > >>> > Geremy Condra >> >> That was harristerical. >> > > > Actually, it is funny... and I love humor as much as I love mathematics, > software, and freedom. Truly harristerical... :) > > But on a serious note, I did wonder who would be the first jouster to offer > the argumentum ad hominem? ... ah, sticks and stones... > > My major professor once told me, "You know you've won the argument when they > start calling you names!" I think your professor should have said "you know you've won the argument when you can prove it". Geremy Condra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 02:29 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <Lnxpp.22196$sS4.18587@newsfe11.iad> |
| In reply to | #3182 |
geremy condra wrote:
>> > But on a serious note, I did wonder who would be the first jouster to offer
>> > the argumentum ad hominem? ... ah, sticks and stones...
>> > My major professor once told me, "You know you've won the argument when they
>> > start calling you names!"
> I think your professor should have said "you know you've won the
> argument when you can prove it".
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20091111151305785
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5jKMEB4hHE
kind regards,
m harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 08:42 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.362.1302795107.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #3179 |
geremy condra wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:50 PM, harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> wrote: >> >> My major professor once told me, "You know you've won the argument when they >> start calling you names!" > > I think your professor should have said "you know you've won the > argument when you can prove it". > If you can prove it, you know you're right. Unfortunately, being right doesn't mean you win the argument. :( ~Ethan~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CM <cmpython@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 09:48 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <f3959132-080e-425a-a95e-510731300d7c@2g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3179 |
On Apr 14, 1:50 am, harrismh777 <harrismh...@charter.net> wrote: > Westley Martínez wrote: > >>>> I don't even know one person who has Win7 installed, running, and likes it... > >>>> > >> not even one. > > >>> > > Hi, m harris, nice to meet you. Now you do. > > >>> > > To the online community: Is there a name for trolling for A by > >>> > > advocating for not-A in a way that discredits your point of view an > >>> > > case so that A now seems much more reasonable? It's not really > >>> > > "concern trolling". What would this be called? > > >> > Harrisment. > > >> > /I'm sorry, this is abuse... > > >> > Geremy Condra > > That was harristerical. > > Actually, it is funny... and I love humor as much as I love mathematics, > software, and freedom. Truly harristerical... :) > > But on a serious note, I did wonder who would be the first jouster to > offer the argumentum ad hominem? ... ah, sticks and stones... I don't think there has been any argumentum ad hominem used here. No one besmirched you. What was criticized was your approach, which seemed counter-productive, and so much so that it seemed like you are "really" advocating FOR software patents by discrediting the position against them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 23:27 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <oU8qp.30478$yp3.22063@newsfe09.iad> |
| In reply to | #3204 |
CM wrote: > What was criticized was your approach, which > seemed counter-productive, and so much so that it seemed like you are > "really" advocating FOR software patents by discrediting the position > against them. Oh, the "thou protesteth too much" argument... ... well, I can only say that none of us can afford to protest too little about this issue. Too many have their heads in the sand and time is running out. If we're ever going to see this changed in our life-times then a whole lot of somebodies better get on the stick...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-12 13:37 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.279.1302637061.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #3036 |
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:22 AM, harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> wrote: > This is very difficult... and I'm not dodging the ball here... its just > the truth. The 'market share' data are bogus. Reason? ... because the free > software 'market' is not a market. This is just word-play. It has no bearing on the accuracy of the data, because the data are not necessarily based on sales. > It is not measured in any way, and it is almost impossible to determine therefore in any accurate fashion. There > really are no data... what we need here is a census of sorts. There is at least one method of measuring it without resorting to sales figures: logging user-agent data from web browsers. Is it perfectly accurate? Of course not. But there are a number of different organizations that do this, sampling hundreds of thousands of different websites, and they consistently report that the various versions of Windows have a total usage share ranging from 80% to 90%. That at least gives us an upper and lower bound with a great deal of confidence. In the same data, Apple systems range from about 7% to 15%, and Linux musters a meager 1% to 3%. > IE is dead. It is flat dead... almost nobody is using it... > > The market data are worthless in this discussion, because free software > and free software platforms are not measured in the 'market'. Did you actually look at the links I provided you with? FOSS browsers are absolutely represented there. Again, that data is not based on sales! It is based on user-agent logging. > Please allow > me one more anecdote... I have purchased several machines over the last ten > years... all of them preloaded with Windows (something) and all of them > running IE (something). NONE of those machines ever saw the light of day as > "Windows" machines. I purchased the hardware *only* recovered my cost on the > M$ license, and quickly loaded my linux system of choice... and I've used > them all, believe me. > The point here is that the 'market' data would show that my machines were > purchased, installed, and running... activated even. Wrong! The data that I am talking about would report those as Linux systems, provided that you use them for web-browsing. Otherwise, it would not report them at all. > ... just eggs and ham... Give me a break !!! I don't even know one > person who has Win7 installed, running, and likes it... not even one. I have it installed and running, and I like it for what it is. An easy-to-use platform with a wide range of software options that requires little time investment from me for installation, configuration, and maintenance. I would not and do not use it for everything, but I am able to appreciate the convenience. So now you can say that you know one person. Cheers, Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-12 23:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <4da4e41f$0$29986$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #3081 |
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:37:08 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > There is at least one method of measuring it without resorting to sales > figures: logging user-agent data from web browsers. Is it perfectly > accurate? Of course not. But there are a number of different > organizations that do this, sampling hundreds of thousands of different > websites, and they consistently report that the various versions of > Windows have a total usage share ranging from 80% to 90%. That at least > gives us an upper and lower bound with a great deal of confidence. In > the same data, Apple systems range from about 7% to 15%, and Linux > musters a meager 1% to 3%. Yes, but it's the most important 1%. *wink* Seriously, I would expect that Linux is seriously under-reported in surveys based on user-agent, for various reasons, starting with the number of people who have their user-agent set to claim to be IE on Windows even when they're running (say) Konqueror on Linux. Nevertheless, I'd be gratified if Linux marketshare of the desktop was as high as 5%. That would be awesome. Another interesting source of data might be on-line games that offer clients for multiple platforms. E.g. EVE Online (to pick an old, well established one that just so happens to use Python as its scripting engine). -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 01:04 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <D7wpp.14226$sy5.2295@newsfe22.iad> |
| In reply to | #3081 |
Ian Kelly wrote:
> There is at least one method of measuring it without resorting to
> sales figures: logging user-agent data from web browsers. Is it
> perfectly accurate? Of course not. But there are a number of
> different organizations that do this, sampling hundreds of thousands
> of different websites, and they consistently report that the various
> versions of Windows have a total usage share ranging from 80% to 90%.
True enough.
How many web crawlers have you built? Are there any web programmers
out there who need a web bot to hit multiple sites zillions of times a
month from different places on earth to 'up' the number of hits for
economic reasons? I've seen my share of this.
How mamy times have you altered the identity of your web browser so
that the web site would 'work'? You know, stupid messages from the
server that say, "We only support IE 6+, upgrade your browser...", so
you tell it you're using IE 6 and, well no problem.
Web site data is bogus. It assumes even distributions... it assumes
even usage of the site from all surfers, it assumes no web crawlers and
no bots, it assumes no browser identity tampering, and it assumes that
there aren't those who for economic reasons are not inflating the
numbers deliberately (no, really??) from world-owned bot farms.
There is no reliable way to measure free software usage. But, there
sure is a lot of posturing going on in the market place ... wonder why?
kind regards,
m harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 19:15 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.353.1302772509.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #3180 |
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:04 PM, harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> wrote: > > How many web crawlers have you built? Are there any web programmers out > there who need a web bot to hit multiple sites zillions of times a month > from different places on earth to 'up' the number of hits for economic > reasons? I've seen my share of this. A well-behaved spider will (a) have a UA that identifies itself (as a bot, and preferably as itself - eg "GoogleBot", etc - some even go so far as to include a URL for more info), and (b) start by fetching /robots.txt before they go any further. Servers can recognize properly-built crawlers. And improperly-built crawlers, deliberately trying to hammer a server to lie about browser stats? Seriously, do you think people actually care THAT much? > How mamy times have you altered the identity of your web browser so that > the web site would 'work'? You know, stupid messages from the server that > say, "We only support IE 6+, upgrade your browser...", so you tell it > you're using IE 6 and, well no problem. Yep. Which means that the figures will always be skewed toward IE a bit. But it's a lot less than you might think; most people don't leave UA switchers active all the time, and the number of web sites that require them is dropping. It's true that UA switching will tip toward IE (I've never seen a site where you have to pretend to be Google Chrome), but the epidemology is, I believe, not all that high. > Web site data is bogus. It assumes even distributions... it assumes even > usage of the site from all surfers, it assumes no web crawlers and no bots, > it assumes no browser identity tampering, and it assumes that there aren't > those who for economic reasons are not inflating the numbers deliberately > (no, really??) from world-owned bot farms. Even distributions of what? 1) Assuming nothing, it merely gives data. About one site. That's why overall "browser marketshare" stats have to be done by averaging multiple sites. 2) Web crawlers - see above. If you've ever looked at AWStats or Webalizer or *insert stats engine here*, you'll have seen that it will identify them. AWStats goes a bit further and will identify "viewed traffic" and "not viewed traffic" even if it's unable to identify the specific bot. 3) Yes, it assumes no UA switchers, obviously. It's just based on headers. But I reckon you could easily identify someone who's using a switcher, based on other headers - for instance, I doubt very much that IE6 will send "Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate,sdch" (which my Chrome does). 4) Assumes people aren't deliberately fiddling the figures. Yeah, that would be correct. We're in the realm of conspiracy theories here... does anyone seriously think that browser stats are THAT important that they'd go to multiple web servers with deceitful hits? Not forgetting that they'd have to mix up the IPs, make plausible "browsing sessions" (with referers and image retrieval and so on), vary the date/times, etc, etc, etc, etc... and generate enough hits to make a reasonable dent in the figures. > There is no reliable way to measure free software usage. But, there sure > is a lot of posturing going on in the market place ... wonder why? Sure, and there's no reliable way to measure non-free software usage either. What's the difference? You could count sales of Microsoft Office, and you could count downloads of Open Office. Neither is any more accurate than the other; although I think the 24-hour figures for Firefox 4 / IE 9 downloads are fairly indicative, since people can't get them off their respective OS install CDs. And this isn't restricted to electronica either. Which is more popular, Coca-Cola or Pepsi? Do more people vote Liberal or Labour, Republican or Democrat, Whig or Tory? Statisticking is a huge science. Most of it involves figuring out what's important - anyone can get data, but getting useful information out of the data takes some work. Chris Angelico
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 14:02 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <4da6fe5e$0$29986$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #3190 |
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 19:15:05 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > 4) Assumes people aren't deliberately fiddling the figures. Yeah, that > would be correct. We're in the realm of conspiracy theories here... does > anyone seriously think that browser stats are THAT important that they'd > go to multiple web servers with deceitful hits? Back in the day, not that many years ago, when it looked like Internet Explorer would never dip below 90% market share and web developers coded for IE quirks instead of standards as a matter of course, I used to fantasize of writing a Windows virus that (apart from propagating) did nothing but change the user-agent string on IE. It would have been awesome to witness the consternation among web developers. But thanks to the EU doing what the US DOJ refused to do, and the grass- roots popularity of Firefox (plus a fewer well-known even if not often used browsers like Safari and Opera), and then Google's scarily efficient way they can capture hearts and minds on the Internet, IE's market share has been whittled away to the point that there are places in the world where IE is a minority browser. A large minority, it is true, but still a minority. Now, if only we could convince web users that having your browser execute untrusted code downloaded from the Internet is not such a good idea, supposed sandbox or not. What the world needs is a virus that silently removes Javascript and Flash from browsers... -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 00:11 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.360.1302790272.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #3198 |
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: > Now, if only we could convince web users that having your browser execute > untrusted code downloaded from the Internet is not such a good idea, > supposed sandbox or not. What the world needs is a virus that silently > removes Javascript and Flash from browsers... We don't need a virus. All we need is a few good blog posts and some viable alternatives. Flash may very well start dying as HTML5 takes over; it'll be relegated to in-browser games (some of which are very good, as it happens), and people will use it only if they play those games. Javascript/ECMAScript though is here to stay... I very much doubt anyone's going to abolish or replace it. Sure, executing code downloaded from the internet can be risky; but scripting is a lot less risky than downloading plugins, and there's a LOT of people who will just go "Oh, I need to download something to make this work? Okay. *click*" - now THAT is the real risk. They don't know (or care) whether they're getting Adobe Flash Player version 123, or Acrobat Reader 234, or Java Applet Engine By Bob's Dodgy Coders 345, and if that doesn't scare sysadmins, nothing will. Chris Angelico
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 13:46 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.368.1302814014.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #3198 |
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 14:02 +0000, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 19:15:05 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > > > 4) Assumes people aren't deliberately fiddling the figures. Yeah, that > > would be correct. We're in the realm of conspiracy theories here... does > > anyone seriously think that browser stats are THAT important that they'd > > go to multiple web servers with deceitful hits? > > Back in the day, not that many years ago, when it looked like Internet > Explorer would never dip below 90% market share and web developers coded > for IE quirks instead of standards as a matter of course, I used to > fantasize of writing a Windows virus that (apart from propagating) did > nothing but change the user-agent string on IE. It would have been > awesome to witness the consternation among web developers. > > But thanks to the EU doing what the US DOJ refused to do, and the grass- > roots popularity of Firefox (plus a fewer well-known even if not often > used browsers like Safari and Opera), and then Google's scarily efficient > way they can capture hearts and minds on the Internet, IE's market share > has been whittled away to the point that there are places in the world > where IE is a minority browser. A large minority, it is true, but still a > minority. > > Now, if only we could convince web users that having your browser execute > untrusted code downloaded from the Internet is not such a good idea, > supposed sandbox or not. What the world needs is a virus that silently > removes Javascript and Flash from browsers... > > > > -- > Steven Web developers will always use the tool they find to be the most reliable, efficient, and useful, as will consumers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 02:21 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <4da7abad$0$29986$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #3213 |
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:46:46 -0700, Westley Martínez wrote: >> Now, if only we could convince web users that having your browser >> execute untrusted code downloaded from the Internet is not such a good >> idea, supposed sandbox or not. What the world needs is a virus that >> silently removes Javascript and Flash from browsers... > > Web developers will always use the tool they find to be the most > reliable, efficient, and useful, as will consumers. That doesn't explain Javascript or Flash. Both are popular *despite* being unreliable and inefficient. The Flash plugin is widely regarded as a steaming heap of unreliable crap even on Windows. Its reputation on Linux is even worse. What they give is ubiquity, which is a point in their favour. But just because something is common doesn't make it useful: for the most part both are used for style over substance, of sizzle without sausage, rather than anything actually useful or desirable: think of a misfeature that *degrades* the user-experience, and chances are it's implemented in Flash or Javascript on tens of thousands of sites. Yes-I-am-a-bitter-old-curmudgeon-ly y'rs, -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 22:52 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <roy-5AA94E.22525614042011@news.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #3232 |
In article <4da7abad$0$29986$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: > What they give is ubiquity, which is a point in their favour. But just > because something is common doesn't make it useful: for the most part > both are used for style over substance, of sizzle without sausage, rather > than anything actually useful or desirable: think of a misfeature that > *degrades* the user-experience, and chances are it's implemented in Flash > or Javascript on tens of thousands of sites. There's certainly a lot to hate about JS (and even more so, flash), but they fill a niche. They provide a way to have better user interaction than you could with just forms and a submit button. That's not to say there's not lot of sucky shit build with them. But, if they didn't exist, something else would have to take their place. I don't see JS going away any time soon. Flash, on the other hand, is an unadulterated pile of dung.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 13:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.369.1302814230.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #3198 |
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 14:02 +0000, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 19:15:05 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > > > 4) Assumes people aren't deliberately fiddling the figures. Yeah, that > > would be correct. We're in the realm of conspiracy theories here... does > > anyone seriously think that browser stats are THAT important that they'd > > go to multiple web servers with deceitful hits? > > Back in the day, not that many years ago, when it looked like Internet > Explorer would never dip below 90% market share and web developers coded > for IE quirks instead of standards as a matter of course, I used to > fantasize of writing a Windows virus that (apart from propagating) did > nothing but change the user-agent string on IE. It would have been > awesome to witness the consternation among web developers. > > But thanks to the EU doing what the US DOJ refused to do, and the grass- > roots popularity of Firefox (plus a fewer well-known even if not often > used browsers like Safari and Opera), and then Google's scarily efficient > way they can capture hearts and minds on the Internet, IE's market share > has been whittled away to the point that there are places in the world > where IE is a minority browser. A large minority, it is true, but still a > minority. > > Now, if only we could convince web users that having your browser execute > untrusted code downloaded from the Internet is not such a good idea, > supposed sandbox or not. What the world needs is a virus that silently > removes Javascript and Flash from browsers... > > > > -- > Steven Also, why aren't Opera and Google criticized for their proprietary browsers (Chrome is essentially a proprietary front-end)? Is it because their browsers follow web standards, or is it because we have demonized Microsoft?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 21:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <io7pdf$brc$1@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #3214 |
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:50:24 -0700, Westley Martínez wrote: > Also, why aren't Opera and Google criticized for their proprietary > browsers (Chrome is essentially a proprietary front-end)? Is it because > their browsers follow web standards, or is it because we have demonized > Microsoft? > Personally, I could care less whether a web browser is proprietary or not. What matters to me is whether its standards-compliant enough to interoperate successfully with standards-compliant browsers. If you're going to argue about web standards its better to criticise non-compliant servers since those will piss off a greater number of people. I think the only real evil is to set out to make a non-standards- compliant server and then design client software that seeks to lock in people to your server. FWIW I'm not certain that is anything that MS deliberately set out to do. Judging from stories over the years of lost code (the Win98 New Year problem) and the general slackness of their project management, its equally possible its simply the result of out of control, anarchic and undocumented software development. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 08:01 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.373.1302818506.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #3219 |
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote: > I think the only real evil is to set out to make a non-standards- > compliant server and then design client software that seeks to lock in > people to your server. FWIW I'm not certain that is anything that MS > deliberately set out to do. IE 6. Why is it still around? Because MS deliberately set out to encourage companies to use its features (mainly in intranet applications). ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web