Another Micoshfat centric myth dies: 75% of Linux developers are now paid
in [UK Linux]
|
Prev: Loony problems
Next: 7 proves he can't do simple math (was: Another Micoshfat centric myth dies: 75% of Linux developers are now paid)
From: Storm on 23 Jan 2010 18:27 On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 22:46:42 GMT, 7 <website_has_email(a)www.enemygadgets.com> wrote: >Erik Funkenbusch wrote: > >> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:38:00 GMT, 7 wrote: >> >>> Doh! >>> >>> It is fool, the set of Linux developers that is paid is still 75% of code >>> developers that is paid to develop Linux code in a 1:1 set relation >>> regardless of how else they may or may not get paid additionally, >>> directly, indirectly, before tax or after tax. >> >> No, 7. >> >> 75% of the code in the linux kernel is written by paid developers. >> >> That 75% of code could have been written by 1 person, or 2000, but >> regardless, the amount of code is not equal to the number of programmers. > > > >Oh! Doooh!!!!!! > >Can't your read fool? >75% of LINUX DEVELOPERS are still paid Linux developers whether its 1 person This makes no sense whatsoever. Your maths is totally faulty. (Like your reasoning). Let me explain: If 75% of paid Linux "developers" are 1 person, (according to your rather rude post) then 100% (i.e. all) linux developers are 1.33r people. So according to your reasoning the entire "paid" Linux development contigent on the planet consist of 1 and one third people. How can there be a third of a person, and if this one third pseron exists, which bit does the development? Eh?
From: Hadron on 23 Jan 2010 19:28 Storm <nospam(a)all.ever> writes: > On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 22:46:42 GMT, 7 > <website_has_email(a)www.enemygadgets.com> wrote: > >>Erik Funkenbusch wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:38:00 GMT, 7 wrote: >>> >>>> Doh! >>>> >>>> It is fool, the set of Linux developers that is paid is still 75% of code >>>> developers that is paid to develop Linux code in a 1:1 set relation >>>> regardless of how else they may or may not get paid additionally, >>>> directly, indirectly, before tax or after tax. >>> >>> No, 7. >>> >>> 75% of the code in the linux kernel is written by paid developers. >>> >>> That 75% of code could have been written by 1 person, or 2000, but >>> regardless, the amount of code is not equal to the number of programmers. >> >> >> >>Oh! Doooh!!!!!! >> >>Can't your read fool? >>75% of LINUX DEVELOPERS are still paid Linux developers whether its 1 person > > This makes no sense whatsoever. Your maths is totally faulty. (Like > your reasoning). > > Let me explain: > > If 75% of paid Linux "developers" are 1 person, (according to your > rather rude post) then 100% (i.e. all) linux developers are 1.33r > people. So according to your reasoning the entire "paid" Linux > development contigent on the planet consist of 1 and one third people. > How can there be a third of a person, and if this one third pseron > exists, which bit does the development? > I dont think I ever saw such a silly post.
From: Storm on 24 Jan 2010 02:52 On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 01:28:54 +0100, Hadron<hadronquark(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Storm <nospam(a)all.ever> writes: > >> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 22:46:42 GMT, 7 >>id Linux developers whether its 1 person <snip> >> This makes no sense whatsoever. Your maths is totally faulty. (Like >> your reasoning). >> >> Let me explain: >> >> If 75% of paid Linux "developers" are 1 person, (according to your >> rather rude post) then 100% (i.e. all) linux developers are 1.33r >> people. So according to your reasoning the entire "paid" Linux >> development contigent on the planet consist of 1 and one third people. >> How can there be a third of a person, and if this one third pseron >> exists, which bit does the development? >> > >I dont think I ever saw such a silly post. You ought to read more postings ;-)
From: johannes on 24 Jan 2010 05:52 7 wrote: > So wot?
From: 7 on 21 Feb 2010 17:13
David Cowie wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:49:51 +0000, 7 wrote: > >> Another Micoshfat centric myth dies: 75% of Linux developers are now >> paid > > I refuse to take you seriously if you cannot spell Micro$oft correctly. why? |