Re: As usual
"Collect another badge of fail. Your assumptions 1 and 3 are the same and number 2 is very similar to them both (if A is more generalised than B then B must be more specialised than A. You only qualify this by indicating where the specialisation may be). "
Assumptions used in a conjecture do not necessarily have to be a reasonings without overlap - one and three are restating the same thing but the language used shows the approach to each one. It may be said that by stating the assumption from two viewpoints clarifys what is being said.
But it *was* sloppily stated. Can't downvote myself but I will upvote you on that.
"t doesn't really matter because the assumptions are only relevant in a hypothesis that you are going to test empirically. Which you can't because El Reg doesn't provide the numbers. This is logic, we haven't even got to the statistics."
Very true. The fail badge is worn for this alone.
"Furthermore, you might want to get out your dictionary and look up corroboration. El Reg's numbers don't have to be the same as either of these two services to provide corroboration."
I know they don't have to be the same and that wasn't what I wanted to convey. What I should have said is the numbers will be considerably smaller overall so any corroboration indicated could be considered an anomaly - you would really need another data collecion over a larger pool of websites - like you say, Akamai's own findings.
I am not defending the result of netmarketshare, I just don't think that El Reg's stats would be meaningful in determining whether or not XP increased market share. But, as you say, without evidence of the figures then this conversation is arguably pointless, although I welcome your well reasoned arguments. It could be that El Reg's figures show an *large* upsurge in XP takeup which would certainly shoot my expectations down.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
