• joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      What percentage increase do you feel is required for surge to be a reasonable definition. A 35% increase feels surge-y me.

        • joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • soggy_kitty@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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

            • joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              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?

  • SamXavia@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m guessing this is because of more sales of the Steam Deck, haven’t got myself one yet but I’d love to as everyone that has gotten ones has said it’s worth the money as well as is a great way to get through your games on the go.

    • NinePeedles@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      You may be right in that people are seeing how viable Linux is for gaming due to the success of the Steam Deck.

      I’m not sure if steam deck is counted under Arch, but it’s definitely not Ubuntu, Mint, or Manjaro. It looks like the increase in Linux desktop is traditional desktop gaming.

      • cygnus@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not sure if steam deck is counted under Arch

        It must be, because there’s no way vanilla Arch is the most-used Linux distro, even among gamers.

    • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Add the article says, the surge is entirely thanks to the Deck. There was a 35% surge in overall use but 43% of that use is the Deck so PC/laptop use has actually dropped.

    • brax@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      That, but also the splash buff of Proton making a lot of games work for Linux outside of Steam Decks has probably helped too.