Can we talk about the definition of a "surge", please!
this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
507 points (98.7% liked)
Linux
48017 readers
903 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
What percentage increase do you feel is required for surge to be a reasonable definition. A 35% increase feels surge-y me.
The council planted a new tree on my road, trees surged in population from 1 to 2 yesterday
100% surge is legit
That's why we're talking about relative percentages.
In your example we would need to know how many trees existed on your road/city before. If there were less than 3 or 4 trees in your city before this, saying there was a surge is likely fine.
I gave you that information, I said "from 1 to 2" and added context of "a tree" (singular)
My terribly made point is that although technically correct when talking about relative increase it's dumb as fuck to say trees "surged in population" after adding just one more on one street. It's a drop on the ocean.
I feel like the term surge respects the final total relative to what its maximum could be as well as the relative increase. But obviously language is regional and up for interpretation
I'm super confused by your point.
In this case we're looking at Steam.
I have no clue how many people submit to the steam survey, but I'll assume it's representative.
A quick google suggests steam has about 120 million active users.
Linux went from about 1.4% to 1.9%.
Rough math says Linux went from 1.7 million to about 2.3 million.
Or an increase of 600 000.
That a lot, both in relative terms and in real terms.
Here's a counter example for you.
You own stock in banana company. Over one day the price increases 2x. All the news agency's are talking about how banana surged in price today. Will you then suggest that banana didn't surge in price because it only makes up 1% of the overall stock market?
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
Click bait media
id like to think this is because I alone decided to install opensuse (its been an awful experience)
Do you mean Linux in general or just Open suse? Never used it other than booting it up and trying out the live environment
Feel the pain 😂.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Linux Mint 0.08% Yay!
It's an excellent distro. My first, after a poor Ubuntu experience years prior. I'll always have good things to say.
LMDE is Mint without the Ubuntu. Don't mind me, just spreading the good word.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I just removed Windows from my desktop and went straight Linux after seeing how well things ran on my Deck.
bill’s days are numbered
I mean, he's not exactly a spring chicken anymore.
My guess is that most gaming Linux users have a dual boot setup and play games on Windows.
If not for games like Destiny, I wouldn’t even need that. Literally everything else I play runs great on Linux now
I used to keep a windows drive to run steam. But it honestly sees very little use nowadays.
Mostly I boot it every few months to see what shenanigans Microsoft has pulled with windows. Other than that, it's just sitting there. Everything I play runs in Linux.
I run Tumbleweed btw.
load more comments
(6 replies)
view more: next ›