>Does that mean that programmers who claim to have gotten rid of Microsoft/Windows products are really using Windows without knowing it whenever they click on a Stack Overflow link? :)

This! The whole article reads ass-backwards by suggesting that if you're accessing a Linux-hosted site you're somehow using Linux on your desktop. I have strong aversions to this kind of sophistry, b/c readers who don't know that that makes no sense innocently repeat it, thereby confusing others or being publicly smashed down by folks who do know better.

Chromebooks have a 5% share

Who cares - people like them, they have a nice sized niche. Just like macs, just like other distros.

They're great for schools - esp. high schools. iPads are probably the more suitable option for elementary age kids.

And luckily prices are staying down. Chromebooks are <$300. iPad minis are $329.

Windows 8 tablets are good for math/science/engineering majors who have to run windows software and might need to use the stylus for notes/drawings.

Even though I've used middle of the road laptops running Ubuntu the past 6 years, I ended up getting a higher end Windows 8 touchscreen laptop to use for video editing, games, graphics, etc. I'll dual boot to Ubuntu or else run it in a vm.

Sorry to reply to myself but I seem to have found a source for the below.

>I find it really hard to believe that quarter of all computer sales are Chromebooks. Does anyone have a source? One would expect Google to announce real shipments if they were that good.

>Web usage metrics from a few months ago showed that Chromebooks are used even less than Windows RT.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-10/google-chromebook-u...

The relevant statement:

>Chromebooks have in just the past eight months snagged 20 percent to 25 percent of the U.S. market for laptops that cost less than $300, according to NPD Group Inc

So, 20% to 25% of laptop sales costing below $300 became "25% of all computers" ? I don't know if the Intel guy said that in this keynote, or it's SJVN's mistake, but it's just terrible reporting.

That's an interesting reply, with links to several different articles to back your point. Also, an interesting comment history.

Do you, or a company you're employed with, have a financial relationship with Microsoft? A simple "Yes" or "No" will do, thanks. I'm very trusting and will believe you.

Does anyone not have a "financial relationship with Microsoft"?

No, and never did. I am actually working on NetBeans/PHP/Drupal(gah!) on the other monitor, though I am primarily a C# guy.

And even I did work for MS, how does that invalidate any of my points? If I worked for Microsoft, does that suddenly mean it's okay for ZDNet to claim 25% of all computers being sold are Chromebooks? Interesting that no one is questioning SJVN's ulterior motives, if any! I do believe it's just to garner clicks though, Ed Bott will probably reply with an article debunking this one and ZDNet and its "journalists" will laugh all the way to the bank.

> I wanted to ask you: why is it that you spend time defending a multi-billion dollar corporation, for free, when they actually pay people to do this?

This confuses me. Debates about facts should never be limited to marketing departments versus the world, with everyone who agrees with the corporation sitting by quietly.

People who care about accuracy like to correct inaccurate/untruthful statements, perhaps?

It's something like being a devil's advocate, plus being a fan. Spreading mistruths actually hurts things. When people say things like "Windows 8 won't boot without secure boot enabled", it's no longer opinion(like "MS sucks and is dying") but an objective fact that can be checked.

It's not effort expended per se, since it's more like debating merits of phone OSes at the water cooler rather than work. If they're paying people to do it, then they're doing quite a shitty job. I don't feel the need to "defend" other companies, because companies like Apple and Google already have plenty of fans who point out inaccuracies in stories or comments even before I even get a chance to comment.

Imagine an article which erroneously claims Windows Phone has "25% of the phone market" and that "Android is declining". Now imagine the HN comments on it and how karma might be distributed on those comments. Do you really think the equivalent to the following comment which is currently on top would still be on top?

programminggeek> "Microsoft has really fallen these last few years."

Or would it be a comment accusing the author of being a "Microsoft shill" ?

The moderation on here is pretty brutal even when pointing out objective facts, I have seen people get hellbanned by getting downvoted for making comments that people don't want others to see, but are true.

Ok, that makes sense when it's factual matters. But I have seen people whose entire comments history is comprised of defending a corp, whether that be MS, Apple, Google, or other. And I mean literally all their comments: no jokes, no random asides. Everything is supporting "their" company. I guess they must see it like it's a football team they support.

And there is no "if" on whether MS are doing it (employing paid shills). It's a fact that they are. They may well be doing a shitty job, but they're hired all the same. Of course MS are not the only ones; other companies do exactly the same thing. That's pretty much what "Social Media Consultants" are.

Thanks for the reply!