On 05/11/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This always makes me laugh, whether it's Firefox users or Linux users. > > "Because you *can* change the UA in my favourite software, it > automatically follows that 30% of reported visitors *are* faking it." > > (Sounds of straws being grasped) >
At no point have I stated 30% etc and you know that. Try backing up what you say with facts rather than a bit of fiction that everyone 1/2 believes. I wish I could say 30% of all BBC traffic was GNU+Linux. But i believe that would be lying. Just because I made a suggestion, you don't have to immediately ridicule it on the grounds that you don't like the camp I originate from because of your perceptions about GNU+Linux as a platform v windows v mac. I have not said that I "hate" the BBC, or anything of the sort, but if I do not stand up for what I believe in, there is no way I can guarantee anyone else will do it for me. No the only reason I am actually arguuinging this seemingly pointless point, is because I think the iPlayer has fantastic potential and that the BBC is an awesome resource that we can't afford let fall apart. But let's leave this petty disagreement aside and start afresh. If we assume that all unknowns are GNU+Linux (stupid and highly likely, untrue but just consider it) and that known linux vists are a half of all "unknown" visits (which for now we are assuming are linux) that means, in terms of the BBC site, going by the statistics above, we could be talking about in the region of 45,000(15000 + (2*15,000)) BBC GNU+Linux users I Think my maths is correct, if it's not my apologies, please correct me! My logic, well i know we don't know who the unknowns are or why they are unknown so one can only speculate there. ( I have) On 05/11/2007, Tom Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Windows 95.1 % > Macintosh 3.2 % > Unknown 1 % > Linux 0.5 % > What I was, and still am, interested to know is how many "Unknown" hits the BBC gets. whether it makes any difference to the GNU+Linux or not, it still would be comforting to see these numbers because it would make sure that nothing funny was being done with them. IT also would be good because it would tell us that the BBC didn't regard their software as 100% accurate, which I'm sure is something nobody would say, but is currently being implied.
