Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:53:04 -0400 From: Gerard Seibert <gerard@seibercom.net> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BSDStats project, interesting returns from OpenBSD Message-ID: <200609141253.15187.gerard@seibercom.net> In-Reply-To: <20060914160919.GB53648@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <62007.209.103.215.99.1158241221.squirrel@email.polands.org> <20060914160919.GB53648@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart7453669.FhbaNmp3RO Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Thursday 14 September 2006 12:09, Kris Kennaway wrote: > One should not conclude anything until the numbers are much larger > than they are now, because small fluctuations from e.g. regional > promotion of bsdstats in one country but not another, or one large > company deploying it on all machine, will dramatically change your > "conclusions". I was just wondering if there is any consensus on adding BSDStats to the=20 base system? If would appear to be a logical step to take so as to insure=20 that all users of FBSD would be counted. An end user could always disable=20 the sending of data by disabling it in the /etc/rc.file. I feel that unless= =20 it is part of the base system and turned on by default, too many users will= =20 never take part in the reporting process. Also, there does not appear to be a 'man' page for BSDStats. Is that=20 correct? Perhaps there should be one. Just my 2=A2. =2D-=20 Gerard Seibert gerard@seibercom.net Be cheerful while you are alive. Phathotep, 24th Century B.C. --nextPart7453669.FhbaNmp3RO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBFCYj6s3R1WQUU6lgRAtNYAKCiQ0HQJyMfzxAZQFOQ25+emi8jDQCgsSzM eu8Mu649BZr8DqdYBMpWd/k= =HE0o -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart7453669.FhbaNmp3RO--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200609141253.15187.gerard>