From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 23 15:25:07 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17C3616A61E for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:25:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (lurza.secnetix.de [83.120.8.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C25C643D70 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:25:04 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (uxoxqv@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k9NFOKle060341; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:24:26 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.1/Submit) id k9NFOKJl060340; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:24:20 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from olli) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:24:20 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <200610231524.k9NFOKJl060340@lurza.secnetix.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG, bsd-unix@earthlink.net In-Reply-To: <20061023101548.c3cd605e.bsd-unix@earthlink.net> X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-chat User-Agent: tin/1.8.2-20060425 ("Shillay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-STABLE (i386)) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.1.2 (lurza.secnetix.de [127.0.0.1]); Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:24:26 +0200 (CEST) Cc: Subject: Re: FreeBSD branches stats X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG, bsd-unix@earthlink.net List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:25:07 -0000 Randy Pratt wrote: > 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. True. > Speaking for myself, I would not object to bsdstats in the base > system but I'm almost sure it would be off by default. It doesn't have to be in the base system. It could be a port / package. And it's OK to make it off by default. > The problem > of making users aware of its existence would then arise. Two things: First, sysinstall should ask whether it should be enabled. (It could be done as part of the after-install configuration, where sysinstall also asks whether Linux emulation should be enabled etc.) Second -- and I think this is already the case -- if the bsdstats script is installed but not enabled in rc.conf, then the script outputs a message saying so and explaining how to enable it, so the user sees it in his monthly run output. > Perhaps > more users would participate if they knew it existed. Most certainly. > 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. Yes, I think so, too. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. C++: "an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog" -- Steve Taylor, 1998