Mike McGrath wrote:
On 10/4/06, Greg DeKoenigsberg <gdk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote:
> I hope you are understanding it correctly because that is how I
> understand it. I think this is the best idea I have heard so far.
There is a subset of users -- we don't know how large -- who will never
use yum because either (a) they won't have the bandwidth to use it, or
(b)
they won't even understand that they need to use it.
I still think that the Firefox technique will give us a better
cross-section of data.
Let me think about it. I need to send a note to the docs folks anyway --
part apology, part analysis. I'll cc: this group as well.
Just pointing out that about half of the machines I install FC on
don't have X installed, much less firefox.
That's a good reason to put a tool in that does register new servers.
Well, maybe register is the wrong word. That implies a lot of things to
me. But certainly "get counted." Which is different than "track."
I guess it's good to talk about the metrics we're interested in. That
will drive how we build something:
1. Tracking unique desktop users. Also, how long do they use it for?
On the weekends? On weekdays? Do they stop after a number of days of
use? One day never to return? These are very useful statistics in
realizing what kind of job we're doing.
2. Tracking server installs and how long they stay installed. Not quite
the same as the desktop stuff because they are used differently. But
knowing how long they live on the interweb is interesting. Once again,
counting, not tracking.
--Chris
_______________________________________________
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
