Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 16:59:28 +0200 From: Paul Schenkeveld <paul@psconsult.nl> To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD branches stats Message-ID: <20061023145928.GA20210@psconsult.nl> In-Reply-To: <20061023101548.c3cd605e.bsd-unix@earthlink.net> References: <20061021190315.7aa63143.bsd-unix@earthlink.net> <200610231140.k9NBeBK9049488@lurza.secnetix.de> <20061023101548.c3cd605e.bsd-unix@earthlink.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 10:15:48AM -0400, Randy Pratt wrote: > On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:40:11 +0200 (CEST) > Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de> wrote: > > > Randy Pratt wrote: > > > I think the page referenced may include "release" numbers from all > > > the reporting machines regardless of operating system. > > > > > > Better numbers from the relatively small sample can be found at > > > > > > http://www.bsdstats.org/freebsd/releases.php > > > > Where is the link to that URL? I didn't find it anywhere. > > Marc (scrappy@) referenced it in a thread on freebsd-questions a > while back but you are correct that it is not linked from the > bsdstats main page. > > > > which tally up to the totals for FreeBSD listed on the main page. > > > I find the number of 2.x systems a little puzzling though. > > > > Well, I also have 2.2-stable installed on an old notebook > > that wouldn't reasonably run any newer version (it has 4 MB > > RAM and 120 MB disk, no network, no X). > > > > However, the number for 2.x systems seems a bit high indeed. > > I think the users who still run 2.x systems tend to tune > > them manually and watch the lists closely for things that > > need to be patched. Therefore they might have a better > > chance to know about the bsdstats script than people who > > just install a release. The statistics are certainly skewed > > by the fact that the bsdstats script isn't integrated into > > the standard installation, like other BSD projects did > > meanwhile. And the numbers are much too low to have much > > of a statistical value so far. > > The numbers are definitely much too low to draw any conclusions > but they do raise some questions in my mind. Had I seen some > number of 3.x systems, the presence of 2.x boxes would seem less > conspicuous. > > Speaking for myself, I would not object to bsdstats in the base > system but I'm almost sure it would be off by default. The problem > of making users aware of its existence would then arise. Perhaps > more users would participate if they knew it existed. So far, Have sysinstall (maybe mergemaster too?) put a comment in /etc/rc.conf to make users aware of bsdstats and ask to please enable it (explaining that it won't harm nor export sensitive information). # NOTE: # # Please uncomment the line below. It will make this system automatically # update a database at bsdstats.org telling which version of BSD is running. # This will help the various BSD projects convince software makers that BSD # systems are actually used on a very wide scale and that support for BSD # in their software is as important as support for other operating systems. # # Enabling bsdstats will not compromise the security of this system as no # network ports will be opened by bsdstats. The data that gets exported # by bsdstats is not sensitive and completely anaonymous. The sole purpose # of bsdstats is to get statistics on the installed base of BSD systems. # # For more information, please visit http://www.bsdstats.org/ # #bsdstats_enable="YES" > bsdstats has only been mentioned in a couple of mailing lists. > The present low numbers of reporting systems just reinforces my > perception that mosts users don't read the mailing lists so even > if it were included in the base system it might not get activated. > > All in all, bsdstats could be useful information beyond its original > intent of demonstrating to hardware vendors that a viable market > exists. I had thought about mentioning these stats during the > 4.x EOL bikesheds since the terms "many 4.x" and "a lot of users" > were being tossed around. The 4.x with 10% total didn't seem to > meet the criteria for "many" to me ;-) Of course, I didn't bring > it up since the sampling is so small at this point that it would > have only added to the noise on the lists. > > Randy Paul Schenkeveld
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061023145928.GA20210>