At the very least they amount to people doing due dilligence and making the best choice they can.
Now you can argue all those people don't really know what they're doing, and you sit in a position of actually knowing they're making a mistake, but that's all so much posturing now, isn't it?
The point is, I'm providing stats, facts, information. It's great to be able to argue their relevance, because it's great to have something more than an unfounded opinion to base a discussion on.
Which is my point.
That seemed to be your point.
> At the very least they amount to people doing due dilligence and making the best choice they can.
No, it doesn't mean that, especially not if they follow your reasoning which I don't doubt a lot of them do.
It also seems like you're still pushing the same point, that sales numbers mean a better product.
> Now you can argue all those people don't really know what they're doing, and you sit in a position of actually knowing they're making a mistake, but that's all so much posturing now, isn't it?
So... because these people are in a position to buy software, they must be making the correct choices? To question the meaning of the SQL server sales figures is posturing? That's some blind faith in "people who buy things".
Odds are most people who have purchased MSSQL did so because they are hooking it up to Exchange or IIS in a company that is all Microsoft from top to bottom. Is this such a horrible thing? No. Like they say, nobody was ever fired for buying Microsoft. Does any of this mean that Exchange or IIS or MSSQL are better than the alternatives? No, it just means they are the safe and easy choices for people who make software purchases.
> The point is, I'm providing stats, facts, information. It's great to be able to argue their relevance, because it's great to have something more than an unfounded opinion to base a discussion on.
You're providing irrelevant stats, facts, information, and offering up an unfounded opinion that "higher sales mean a better product".
> Which is my point.
It may have been your intent, but it was not your point, at least not the point you seem to keep trying to make.
Here would be a more interesting statistic: can you show a case where a business or university IT department spent several weeks evaluating a number of competing products in detail, and concluded (complete with spreadsheets) that Microsoft's solution was undoubtedly the cheapest and most robust long-term investment?
It's sort of why the iCrap consistently dominates the mp3 market, despite the overwhelming lack of features: it is better suited to the simplistic needs of its users.