3 ms·

>I see someone mention in an HN comment that a Mac appears when Javascript is disabled. I had totally tuned it out before but now it looks ridiculous. Why in th

by batista 15y ago

>I see someone mention in an HN comment that a Mac appears when Javascript is disabled. I had totally tuned it out before but now it looks ridiculous. Why in the world would the primary choice be to download for Mac? Because Mac has 10% share (US at least), Linux has around 1%, so most Git users use Macs, thus it would make sense to use it? In programmer conferences, for example, from Ruby, to R, to Scala to Python, most people come with Apple laptops. In campuses, it's even worse (or better, depending on how you see things. Last but not least, even the creator of Linux and Git himself, uses a Mac (albeit with Linux loaded). >Why would the only other platform download be for Windows? Maybe because Windows has like 90% market share, and because Git was historically not well supported on the platform they want to attract users to it? As for why no Linux download, well, because Linux users get it from their distro. (Discl: I use Linux (Ubuntu LTS) for servers and OS X for my desktop. Cut my teach on Sun OS in the nineties).

icebraining 15y ago
Those market shares - both among the general population and among developers, which are themselves very different - are completely irrelevant. The share that matters here is mostly among "developers using NoScript". I wouldn't be surprised in the least to know that Linux has that share.
- batista 15y ago
  >Those market shares - both among the general population and among developers, which are themselves very different - are completely irrelevant. The share that matters here is mostly among "developers using NoScript". I wouldn't be surprised in the least to know that Linux has that share. I thought he was making the general case, why a Mac picture at all as a choice, not why show a Mac specifically for the noscript. If he means the latter, then, well, it doesn't matter at all. It's not like more than 0.1% of people visiting the page will see the noscript version --and it's not like anywhere should even care about what they will see.
  - marshray 15y ago
    It's not like more than 0.1% of people visiting the page will see the noscript version What makes you say this? Of the folks I know who might like to use a site about git, most of them use Firefox with Noscript. I'm sure my sample is biased, but I don't think you can assume it will never be more than 0.1%.

by batista 15y ago

icebraining 15y ago

Those market shares - both among the general population and among developers, which are themselves very different - are completely irrelevant. The share that matters here is mostly among "developers using NoScript". I wouldn't be surprised in the least to know that Linux has that share.

batista 15y ago
>Those market shares - both among the general population and among developers, which are themselves very different - are completely irrelevant. The share that matters here is mostly among "developers using NoScript". I wouldn't be surprised in the least to know that Linux has that share. I thought he was making the general case, why a Mac picture at all as a choice, not why show a Mac specifically for the noscript. If he means the latter, then, well, it doesn't matter at all. It's not like more than 0.1% of people visiting the page will see the noscript version --and it's not like anywhere should even care about what they will see.
- marshray 15y ago
  It's not like more than 0.1% of people visiting the page will see the noscript version What makes you say this? Of the folks I know who might like to use a site about git, most of them use Firefox with Noscript. I'm sure my sample is biased, but I don't think you can assume it will never be more than 0.1%.