Re: FreeBSD branches stats

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
_______________________________________________
freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-chat-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"