Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #114992

Re: The "stats" debate.

From	cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject	Re: The "stats" debate.
Date	2012-06-18 14:43 -0700
Organization	http://groups.google.com
Message-ID	<ee7dd00a-e274-47bf-b5d5-1faf9e5769dd@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
References	<CC04DFEC.388E%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Monday, June 18, 2012 4:38:52 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> Carroll and cc are going on and on and on... but never actually getting
> around to the points. To help the, focus:

"Hmmmm, renewed interest in usability and experimentation on the desktop...
and the usage numbers increase. Exactly what *I* have been saying would happen and the herd has been disagreeing with. For years."
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/164db8575b99ff67?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect

"If an improved UI would bring in new users, then more people as a percentage would be using Linux. But they're not. So either the improved UI has no effect, or there is no improved UI."
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/98cc9c879d1c1986?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect

"Still, looking at the *trend* from the last year shows an increase:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxUsageTrendMar12.png>.
So, yes, desktop Linux usage share *seems*, based on our best data, to be
moving upward."
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/efedf29b5d795efe?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect

"So I looked at your data. And showed it to you... including the upward trend line. And still you cannot find it in yourself to admit the trend line is moving upward, even based on your data:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>"
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/77d7d142002afe12?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect

"To be fair: for a while it seemed like it was gaining share"
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/92ddda2246c8f923?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect

"Only to those unable to do a simple regression analysis."
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/bb1a3544d2f4c29c?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect

"I must say, it amuses me how much it pisses you off to have been proved so
wrong."
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/654c4e035fc9c25?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect

"The ACTUAL trendline should be y = 0.0038x + 0.9702. You'll notice that is flatlined, as one would expect. That equation is using just Snit's data he posted at that link. I get an average of 1.06%, and a stddev of 0.168262. I set control limits to 1.5*sigma and did a linear trend (obviously)."
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ace06ca1b8ebf342?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect

"Well here are two inescapable facts:
My trend line had a better R^2 value, and my trend line showed a different trend from yours."
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/6d276b40fdfddc5a?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect

That is the focus. Everything else is superfluous stuff Snit was also incorrect about. The focus is: Snit had a data set. Snit tried to use said data set to prove his point. I showed Snit that he didn't prove his point using proper statistical analysis.

Snit's point and technique were so thoroughly beaten down that he's resorted to creating other data sets (which have their own problem) which were never in discussion, trying to create other arguments where none existed, and using a new nym, all to hide his beatdown.

--
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov> - Snit's ignorance of Excel and his hilarious attempt at statistical analysis

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

The "stats" debate. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-18 13:38 -0700
  Re: The "stats" debate. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-18 14:43 -0700
    Re: The "stats" debate which cc still runs from Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-18 14:53 -0700
  OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-18 16:14 -0700
    Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-18 21:13 -0700
      Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 07:21 -0700
        Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 16:26 +0200
          Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 07:51 -0700
            Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 07:59 -0700
            Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 17:16 +0200
              Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 08:23 -0700
              Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 09:01 -0700
              Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 10:20 -0700
          Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 08:00 -0700
            Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 08:13 -0700
              Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 08:30 -0700
                Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 08:58 -0700
                Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 09:46 -0700
                Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 10:23 -0700
                Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 11:21 -0700
                Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face.  Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 12:16 -0700
                Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 12:27 -0700
                Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 12:33 -0700
                Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 12:39 -0700
                Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 12:41 -0700
                Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 12:49 -0700
                Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 13:23 -0700
                Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 18:34 -0700
                Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 16:16 -0700
                Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 18:35 -0700
                Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 05:27 -0700
                Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 08:36 -0700
                Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 08:43 -0700
                Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 08:47 -0700
                Watch cc run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 09:34 -0700
                Watch cc run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 09:59 -0700
                OT: The realities Snit must overlook to continue... Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 10:57 -0700
                Re: OT: The realities Snit must overlook to continue... Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 11:10 -0700
                cc and Carroll lie about their running. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 11:48 -0700
                Re: cc and Carroll lie about their running. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 11:57 -0700
                cc runs *again*.  How much of a coward can he be? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 12:26 -0700
                Re: cc runs *again*.  How much of a coward can he be? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 12:39 -0700
                Re: cc runs *again*.  How much of a coward can he be? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 13:56 -0700
                Re: cc runs *again*.  How much of a coward can he be? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 14:15 -0700
                Wow... cc proves he is a coward *again*! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 14:59 -0700
                Re: Wow... cc proves he is a coward *again*! Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 18:16 -0700
                Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 18:24 -0700
                Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 14:33 -0700
                Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 18:13 -0700
                Re: OT: The realities Snit must overlook to continue... Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 18:14 -0700
            Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 08:59 -0700
          Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 08:45 -0700
      Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-18 23:00 -0700

csiph-web