I will say I did the stats to start just for fun. While there might be a slight bias towards AOLserver because of the association between OpenACS and Uptime (and the relative small sample of 3400 websites) I would have to say that the numbers are rather reflective of the current state of the 'net.
Remember AOLserver is used for more that just OpenACS. Just in running the uptime server and talking with some of the people that use the services, many of them have never heard of OpenACS (something I wish to change with some more linking back to OpenACS from uptime).
If you look at the usage states (http://uptime.openacs.org/usage/ and yes, I know that haven't been runnig lately) qutie a few of the referrers actually some from searchs or links from web hosting companies. Without much "marketing" from uptime or OpenACS there is quite a bit of activity from people who really just want to monitor their website.
I think if OpenACS and AOLserver actually had information in docs that said 'Use uptime' that the numbers might be more biased, but since that is not really done (-and I am not say ing that it should be done-just saying that is isn't) I think the numbers reflect something on the 'net, I'm just not exactly sure what or who the represent.
Maybe I should take these numbers and compare them to somthing like Netcraft to see how the percentage of /monitored/ servers reflect against the percentage of servers. Then we might be able to say, Server X has a higher percentage of /cluefull/ admins :->
