Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 19:03:15 -0400 From: Randy Pratt <bsd-unix@earthlink.net> To: Josh Paetzel <josh@tcbug.org> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr> Subject: Re: FreeBSD branches stats Message-ID: <20061021190315.7aa63143.bsd-unix@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <200610200847.25039.josh@tcbug.org> References: <20061019194046.GA35135@xor.obsecurity.org> <200610200816.k9K8GcBu063508@lurza.secnetix.de> <ehafmo$u3u$1@sea.gmane.org> <200610200847.25039.josh@tcbug.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 08:47:24 -0500 Josh Paetzel <josh@tcbug.org> wrote: > On Friday 20 October 2006 07:33, Ivan Voras wrote: > > Oliver Fromme wrote: > > > http://bsdstats.org/releases.php > > > > Hmm, these stats look garbled to me. There are even some > > nonsensical data - versions 1.x and 9.x. > > > > My suggestion is to the creators of bsdstats to group version > > numbers by OS type (FreeBSD/NetBSD/others) since the current > > display seems unusable. > > > > Personally I've never had a very high opinion of the whole bsdstats > thing. And while the merits of the whole thing might be debatable I > think it's pretty obvious that the implimentation of it is poor at > best. 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 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. The rest seem somewhat reasonable to me. I think seeing what hardware is being used is interesting and may have some future benefits but as it stands, I think there is some abuse by script kiddies going on. I'm sure things will improve as it progresses if Marc continues to work on it. Randy --
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061021190315.7aa63143.bsd-unix>