[sangnoir]

> That software (desktop Linux/UNIX) comes for free, and yet, only 1% or less (from browser stats of major traffic points) seem to opt to use it as their desktop.

>Is this the kind of difference the parent was describing?

Cancer kills 171.2 per 100,000[1]. So by your metrics, the Linux desktop folks make a bigger difference than curing cancer as 1% > 0.1712%

1. Cancer mortility. see https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics

[coldtea]

>Cancer kills 171.2 per 100,000[1]. So by your metrics, the Linux desktop folks make a bigger difference than curing cancer as 1% > 0.1712%

This is the kind of illogical result stemming from only reasoning half-way.

First of all, the cure for cancer wouldn't affect only the ones that die but also the ones that don't but do suffer complications from current treatment, from going broke from paying for therapy/losing their job in the process, to severe chemo side-effects. It also hugely affects the families and loved ones of those who currently die of cancer.

Second, ever considered the kind and magnitude of impact? Saving even 171 persons (those in a single bunch of 100,000) from dying from cancer is, arguably, quite a bigger deal than sparing millions to have to use Windows or OS X or some commercial UNIX.

[sangnoir]

>>Cancer kills 171.2 per 100,000[1]. So by your metrics, the Linux desktop folks make a bigger difference than curing cancer as 1% > 0.1712%

> This is the kind of illogical result stemming from only reasoning half-way.

I'm glad you saw the flaws in your reasoning - the key phrase in that paragraph was "by your metrics".

> Second, ever considered the kind and magnitude of impact?

My point exactly!! It's not just about numbers/proportion game where you get to say "1% or less [desktop Linux usage] is not a big difference" since it means the world to those who depend on it, for example those who cannot afford Windows licenses or an Apple computer or who find non-free software unconscionable.