Originally posted by allquixotic
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
A First Look At The 2010 Linux Graphics Survey Results
Collapse
X
-
OK, before I give my opinions on the matter:
What exactly is the problem with these results? I can see they'll rub some camps the wrong way, but that is just how polls and surveys go. This isn't Michael trying to prove something- its a freakin poll.
I had to use multiple choice for certain questions- such as my use case for Linux. I use it for Professional 2D/3D, gaming and (not listed) work.
I guess it the fact that not enough people checked the "open source" box pisses some people off, but that is the choice made by the person filling out this information, not the person that put up the poll.
For the multiple choice, I'll give you that a pie chart didn't make alot of sense. Bar graphs for each with option/total entries makes alot more sense.
And now for my opinion-
But really? "omg not enough people picked open source"? The number of people that did so was very low, and it doesn't matter how you graph it- people picked practicality and functionality over open source. Since the -mass majority- of people that filled out this form reported themselves as 'mainstream users', this should really come at no surprise.
As far as I'm concerned, neither is really negotiable in a driver. Neither the freedoms that Open Source brings, nor the Full Functionality that the hardware provides. A driver should fulfill both to be considered a great driver- and unfortunately, nothing exists that fits that description. I'm stuck with a binary for the time being, I guess.
Comment
-
Originally posted by kazetsukai View PostOK, before I give my opinions on the matter:
What exactly is the problem with these results? I can see they'll rub some camps the wrong way, but that is just how polls and surveys go. This isn't Michael trying to prove something- its a freakin poll.
Originally posted by kazetsukai View PostI had to use multiple choice for certain questions- such as my use case for Linux. I use it for Professional 2D/3D, gaming and (not listed) work.
Originally posted by kazetsukai View PostI guess it the fact that not enough people checked the "open source" box pisses some people off, but that is the choice made by the person filling out this information, not the person that put up the poll.
Originally posted by kazetsukai View PostFor the multiple choice, I'll give you that a pie chart didn't make alot of sense. Bar graphs for each with option/total entries makes alot more sense.
Originally posted by kazetsukai View PostBut really? "omg not enough people picked open source"?
Originally posted by kazetsukai View PostThe number of people that did so was very low, and it doesn't matter how you graph it- people picked practicality and functionality over open source. Since the -mass majority- of people that filled out this form reported themselves as 'mainstream users', this should really come at no surprise.
Think of it this way. The single most popular answer, "3D / OpenGL Performance", is 16.54% of the pie chart. Open source is 9.38%. The portion of the pie chart given to the most popular answer is only 1.8 times higher than the portion allocated to open source. Not even double the frequency. Do you see now why the actual number of people who thought open source is important is much higher than just 9.38%? The problem is that nobody except Michael knows exactly how much higher. The actual number is statistically relevant if it's more than 5% different than 9.38%.
Originally posted by kazetsukai View PostAs far as I'm concerned, neither is really negotiable in a driver. Neither the freedoms that Open Source brings, nor the Full Functionality that the hardware provides. A driver should fulfill both to be considered a great driver- and unfortunately, nothing exists that fits that description. I'm stuck with a binary for the time being, I guess.
Comment
-
Originally posted by kazetsukai View PostI had to use multiple choice for certain questions- such as my use case for Linux. I use it for Professional 2D/3D, gaming and (not listed) work.
I guess it the fact that not enough people checked the "open source" box pisses some people off, but that is the choice made by the person filling out this information, not the person that put up the poll.
You have a survey with one of those multiple-select options. TEN people completed the survey, ALL of them selected the "open source" option.... but ALL of them ALSO selected all of the other 10 options (there were a total of 11 options in that question). Based on the method used to process and present this information, it would be presented as ~9% open source, when in REALITY, ***EVERY SINGLE RESPONDENT*** (i.e. 100%) selected open source.
Like this: you have your list of results for each question:
1: 10
2: 10
3: 10
4: 10
5: 10
6: 10
7: 10
8: 10
9: 10
10: 10
11: 10
TOTAL QUESTIONS ANSWERED: 110.
proportions:
1: 10/110=9%
2: 10/110=9%
3: 10/110=9%
4: 10/110=9%
5: 10/110=9%
6: 10/110=9%
7: 10/110=9%
8: 10/110=9%
9: 10/110=9%
10: 10/110=9%
11: 10/110=9%
**** ALL INCORRECT.
The correct way to process these numbers isn't to divide by the total number of answers, but by the total number of RESPONDENTS. The CORRECT results (for this example) are:
1: 10/10=100%
2: 10/10=100%
3: 10/10=100%
4: 10/10=100%
5: 10/10=100%
6: 10/10=100%
7: 10/10=100%
8: 10/10=100%
9: 10/10=100%
10: 10/10=100%
11: 10/10=100%
*** And this CAN'T be presented on a pie chart since a FULL PIE represents 100%. It *HAS* to be presented on a bar graph.
You see the flaw? Obviously showing 9% when it should be 100% is very very incorrect. Note that it is a coincidence that the value Michael gave for open-source was close to 9% (it was 9.38%). It would obviously go up for every other option that somebody did NOT select, and would go down for every respondent that did NOT select it. My *guess* is that the real number is probably somewhere in the 50-60% range (this is, of course, a wild guess that is not based in fact).
For the multiple choice, I'll give you that a pie chart didn't make alot of sense. Bar graphs for each with option/total entries makes alot more sense.
But really? "omg not enough people picked open source"? The number of people that did so was very low, and it doesn't matter how you graph it- people picked practicality and functionality over open source. Since the -mass majority- of people that filled out this form reported themselves as 'mainstream users', this should really come at no surprise.
Just add up the results of that question to confirm:
9.38+7.81+3.68+12.1+16.94+15.52+6.83+16.54+8.34+2. 24+.61 = 100%.
This could ONLY be true IF EVERY respondent checked off PRECISELY ONE option.
Note: If you haven't taken a college level statistics course, I highly recommend that you do. Very useful for data analysis.
As far as I'm concerned, neither is really negotiable in a driver. Neither the freedoms that Open Source brings, nor the Full Functionality that the hardware provides. A driver should fulfill both to be considered a great driver- and unfortunately, nothing exists that fits that description. I'm stuck with a binary for the time being, I guess.
Actually, the open source drivers have FAR FAR MORE functionality than the blobs (i.e. KMS). What the blobs have over the open source drivers is 3D performance, which may or may not matter to some particular user. For my use, I don't really care about having the absolute best possible performance. What **I** am looking for in graphics is FLEXIBILITY and STABILITY. I use an AMD 4290 IGP to drive TWO 1920x1200 digital displays. I like good 2D performance, and my 3D needs are VERY modest... to the point of being almost non-existent.
So from MY perspective, the open source Radeon driver *IS UNQUESTIONABLY* a GREAT driver since it FULLY satisfies MY needs. In fact, the blob driver CAN'T do what I require. The blob driver CAN'T (for technical reasons) drive two digital displays on my hardware. You can go ahead and ask Alex (agd5f) if you don't believe me. And note that the REASON why the open source radeon driver CAN do what I need it to do is PRECISELY BECAUSE it is open source
Comment
-
Originally posted by allquixotic View PostI think Michael is busy with XDS proceedings... he's probably (close to) finding himself in France, so he's got more going on than usual. He's got a lot on his plate. Give him time.
Before this turns into a Michael bashing thread, can people please assume good faith on Michael's part, that he accidentally misinterpreted the results based on his pie charts? Give him the benefit of the doubt that he isn't trying to misrepresent the situation. And give him an extra amount of time to fix the article because he is busy with a significant yearly event right now.
Yes, it's wrong and should be fixed, but no need to get up in arms over it.
Michael, why don't you do anything about this? You could simply edit the article. It should be relatively little work. You might not be able to undo damage you did, but prevent further damage.
MICHAEL, THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE!
Comment
-
BTW, of possible interest:
2009 Linux Graphics Survey
- He used bar graphs instead of pie charts, so we can actually call the pie charts a regression
- 43.37% of the people clicked Licensing / Open-Source as an issue (6000 out of 13836 respondents ticked the box)
- Probably around the same percentage of people ticked the box this year, if not more; there's no basis for believing that the number would have regressed all the way to 9.38% or even close to it.
BTW, Michael is at Oktoberfest now, so he's still "busy" and probably therefore lacking the time to go back over this complicated article. But I won't apologize for him; this is still wrong and needs to be fixed.
I wonder if he reads these comments or whether we need to start showing up at his events and bugging him about it in person...
Comment
-
Nice chart bro!
Who's feeling the 'multiple' love tonight?
Comment
-
Originally posted by m_gol View PostYou didn't think thoroughly about resolution choices. Come on, today's laptops are often equipped with a 1440 x 900 screen - to which category would You qualify it, less than 1280 x 1024 or less than 1600 x 1200?
1280x1024=1310720
1600x1200=1920000
That would be less than 1600x1200.
Comment
Comment