[REBOL] Over 40 Platforms make for good press, but.... Re:
From: joel:neely:fedex at: 23-Sep-2000 15:34
SHORT VERSION: The issue is not how many boxes, but how many of the
really important boxes!
LONG VERSION: Well... mumble!
I have a real problem with numbers such as the following (and my
problem is with CNET, not the messenger;-)
> Market share of OS's as of July 1999
> Windows Flavours 90.5 %
> Mac 5 %
> Unix Flavours 2.9 %
> Total percentage of these OS flavours - 98.4 %
> Total percentage of all other platforms - 1.6 %
> 3 Platforms... Win 95, Win 98 and NT account for 85.6
> % of the market.
> Source CNET(July 1999):
measured by what?
Number of boxes sold with that O/S installed? Retail sales of
that O/S? Breakdown of people called via random phone sampling
and asked, "How many computers do you have and what O/S do you
run on each?" Total dollar volume of installed base? ...
You get the idea.
Now, how many users (dial-in or otherwise) running w95 can one
decent-sized Unix/Linux server support? If your answer is at
least 30, then 90% of the boxes running wxx vs. 3% of the boxes
running Unix sounds like breakeven to me!
I recently saw a "report" by a "technology consulting firm" (I
hope the quotes convey even a fraction of my sarcastic view of
those folks and their work product) which dismissed Linux as
insignificant BECAUSE OF the low total $ value of installed
copies. However, later in the same report they mentioned the
fact that it was common for users to download Linux from the
'Net, get CDs burned by friends, or for a business to buy one
CD set and install on multiple machines. Am I the only one
who sees the incredible irony and self-contradiction here?
Other sources can be found which deal with more focused views
of the installed base of O/S (or other) software. For example,
last time I looked Unix/Linux was on the overwhelming majority
of Internet servers.
I'd rather have 25% of THAT market than 100% of the Radio Shack
customer base, if I wanted to change the shape of the software
> Rather than getting into the whole "Microsoft Sucks"
> debate ...
I wasn't aware that this was even remotely debatable! ;-)