On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 11:02 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > > I don't believe we can. In my opinion, we need *urgently* to start > > somewhere. It's the difference between building a funding plan now and > > building it 6-9 months from now. > > This paragraph sums up my concern best. Greg did a superb job of > elaborating the issues, so I won't prat on about it, but he is 100% > correct when he says that any significant Fedora funding decisions require > stronger metrics than we have been able to provide. > > Each day that we don't change that is a day in which we don't do anything > to help ourselves. > > So from a high level I can say something like "I don't want us to ship fc6 > without having some way to track how many people are actually *using* > fc6". The firefox idea was a good way to track "Desktop" users -- folks > who have installed X. > > Basically just counting unique IP addresses via yum is a good way to track > many different types of installations, basically people who are updating > regardless of their package set. No, it's not. DHCP, NAT, proxies, etc. all make "unique" IP addresses a horrible metric. In some cases, you get a single IP address for a number of different machines. In others, you get two IP addresses for the same machine. Yes, counting IP addresses will give you a metric. I just don't think that metric is good for much because you still don't know how many machines really have Fedora installed. Is it better than nothing? I don't know. josh _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly