Talk:Usage share of operating systems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The HPC system information is wrong

The current (2018/10/26) page text claims: "In June 2017, two AIX computers held rank 493 and 494,[230] the last non-Linux systems before they dropped off the list." The "last non-Linux" part of this claim is wrong.

As of 2018/10, the #8 machine on the TOP500 list is Sequoia. It is an IBM BG/Q system, and the operating system it runs on the compute nodes is not Linux. It does implement some parts of Linux syscalls (e.g., common read() and write() parameters), but it implements only partial syscall support, and is far from "Linux". Partial syscall support reduces the memory/compute footprint on each node -- a good trade-off for HPC -- but supporting only a few Linux features is not "Linux".

Even among "Linux" vendors, support may be 99% (or 98% or 90%, or whatever) rather than 100%. For example, some vendors support HugeTLBfs for only a subset of the hardware's page sizes. This may be a good engineering choice, but may still violate Linux compatibility -- e.g., some Linux compatibility tests may fail.

One way to explain this may be to say HPC systems use Linux, or some HPC-friendly subset of the Linux API, and that since the AIX systems fell off the list, all systems either use Linux or a subset of the Linux API.

Why is the Fedora bar larger than Mint?

...under the Linux section of Desktop share. The Fedora bar appears to take up more space than Mint, even though Fedora has 1.4% market share, and Mint has 1.7%. From what I understand, the sizes of those bars are proportional to their percentages, and are automatically calculated based on them. If this is true, is this a bug? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaos-Industries (talkcontribs) 01:44, 4 August 2017 UTC (UTC)

Flawed statistics

Majority of statistics are from this site only counts OS by web usage. There are probably (tens/hundreds?) millions of computer OS's that never connect to the internet that are excluded by this analysis. So any statement of global OS use based on this sites statistics is flawed and unreliable. No source that doesn't account for the worlds entire installed computer base (as opposed to those that are being used to access the internet) should be used as a reference for this article.

As it stands the title of the article should be ammended to read "Usage share of operating systems used to browse the internet" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:104:4001:71:8567:26E3:CCEC:2596 (talk) 08:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose proposal; all methods of measurements have limitations and you've identified one of the them. Rather than change the title, I suggest just describing the limitations of the measurement methods on the page. There is a policy of keeping titles concise. Klbrain (talk) 09:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Table sorting

There seem to be some conflicting ideas about how the tables in this article should be sorted.

  • Single-source tables like the Gartner and Steam stats seem to be sorted chronologically, newest-first.
  • The Web Clients multi-source table is sorted alphabetically by source, but then it falls apart after that:
    • The StatsCounter group is sorted newest-first.
    • The W3Counter group is sorted oldest-first.
  • The first table in § Mobile Devices.Smartphones isn't sorted by anything. It's just a jumbled collection of stats lines, all mixed together hodge-podge.

These tables really need to be made sortable, though that may require adding quite a lot of |data-sort-value= markup. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 08:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Talk:Usage share of operating systems"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA