Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:15:48 -0400 From: Randy Pratt <bsd-unix@earthlink.net> To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD branches stats Message-ID: <20061023101548.c3cd605e.bsd-unix@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <200610231140.k9NBeBK9049488@lurza.secnetix.de> References: <20061021190315.7aa63143.bsd-unix@earthlink.net> <200610231140.k9NBeBK9049488@lurza.secnetix.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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, 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 --
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061023101548.c3cd605e.bsd-unix>