Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Fedora Metrics Help Whole Linux Community

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the doing-the-numbers dept.

Red Hat Software 132

lisah writes "When Fedora released Fedora Core 6 late last year, the team decided to track the number of users with unique IP addresses who connected to yum in search of updates for a new installation of FC6. According to the data they collected, FC6 crossed the one-million user mark in just 74 days. Fedora Project Leader Max Spevack says that while it's great to use metrics to better understand what users want, the real value lies in its ability to encourage hardware vendors to more offer more Linux-oriented goods and services. Spevack told Linux.com: '[W]e always say we wish hardware vendors had more [Linux-capable] drivers. Well, if you can go to them and say, "Hey, there's millions of people using this," then maybe they will listen. In the real world, you need data to prove your case. Well, here it is.'" Linux.com and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.

cancel ×

132 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

hmmm (0, Offtopic)

User 956 (568564) | more than 7 years ago | (#17818848)

In the real world, you need data to prove your case.

Tell that to District Attorney Mike Nifong. [wral.com]

But.... (4, Funny)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | more than 7 years ago | (#17818856)

Doesn't collecting data make you evil?

Re:But.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17818974)

Doesn't collecting data make you evil?
Not in itself, no. Next question please.

No (4, Insightful)

DrYak (748999) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819116)

Collecting non-personally identifying data, that would be logged anyway during the normal process of the server function (httpd/ftpd daemons will log connection anyway wether or not FC owners choose to do something out of it) and publishing only the compiled form (the total number. Opposed to the complete obfuscated [rot5 scrambled ?] list, AOL-style), ISN'T EVIL (It just similar to the "number of visitors" counters back in the old Web 1.0 days).

Collecting data in an opt-in manner like http://counter.li.org/ [li.org] to do statistic. ISN'T EITHER

Collecting data, that don't necessary need to be collected for technical reason (IP address vs. Pentium serial number), without telling it the user first, without asking permission to the user first, THAT IS EVIL (and regularly done by microsoft and other object of hatred from the /. crowd).

Re:No (1)

blowdart (31458) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819304)

Collecting data, that don't necessary need to be collected for technical reason (IP address vs. Pentium serial number)

Except collecting the IP addresses then using them for marketing purposes is not necessary

Using IP addresses for marketing? (3, Insightful)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819700)

Except collecting the IP addresses then using them for marketing purposes is not necessary

How are they using the IP address for marketing purposes? They're using the number of IP addresses. No one can take the information they've released and determine that a computer at x.x.x.x is running Fedora. (And the information they have, they would have had anyway -- just like Slashdot knows the IP address you posted from.) As the GP said, it's no different from a website processing its server logs and reporting that it had X unique visitors during period Y.

Come to think of it, since yum fetches data over HTTP, it is a website processing its server logs and reporting the number of unique visitors.

Re:Using IP addresses for marketing? (1)

blowdart (31458) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819958)

Except it's just as unnecessary as MS publishing aggregated stats from WindowsUpdate. For which there would be a massive outcry. Out of interest was there an EULA or something to the effect on the yum process saying that your IP address would be recorded?

Even if it were MS, it wouldn't be evil. (3, Insightful)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17820170)

There might be an outcry if Microsoft did that, just because people hate Microsoft and think Microsoft is evil, but that wouldn't mean that doing it would be evil. (So, Microsoft may in fact be evil, but not necessarily everything they do is evil, and moreover, just because they could do something, doesn't make it evil.)

There's nothing wrong with saying "x people accessed Windows Update this [year|month|day]." That's no different from the hit counters that used to exist on every web site. (And which were tacky, and I thank God that people finally realized this.)

What would be evil, and the temptation they need to avoid, is to take their server logs and start mining them for data that can be sold or used for malicious purposes; i.e. personally identifying information about what users are using what versions of Windows, or even how often they're updating, etc.

Aggregate information about hits is something that HTTP servers and their operators do all the time. Where it gets evil is when you have cookies tracking particular users across multiple sites, etc.

Re:Even if it were MS, it wouldn't be evil. (1)

spevack (210449) | more than 7 years ago | (#17820302)

What would be evil, and the temptation they need to avoid, is to take their server logs and start mining them for data that can be sold or used for malicious purposes


We won't do that. I have no interest in selling data about individual Fedora users. All I care about is figuring out how many people are using the software that so many folks work so hard to produce.

Re:Using IP addresses for marketing? (1)

Delkster (820935) | more than 7 years ago | (#17820438)

Anyone who knows a thing or two about computers knows that HTTP servers typically log IP addresses and other information that isn't directly personally identifiable. However, since the average user may not know that yum uses HTTP, or that HTTP servers typically log IP addresses, or that there is such a thing as HTTP, you may have a point.

I don't know if yum informs the user about the logging in any way, but it might be a good idea to do so, if only to be completely clear legally. There's quite clearly nothing ethically wrong about logging that information -- not according to any ethics understandable by me anyway -- so I don't think there'd be much reason to make noise about the matter because of any ethical constraints.

And no, I don't suppose it has an EULA. It may give an informational message (I wouldn't know since I don't use Red Hat or Fedora), but free software doesn't tend to have EULAs.

Personally, I'd have nothing against MS logging, compiling and even publishing some non-personally identifiable statistical data about the use of Windows Update. It's quite clear that the first part is being done anyway, and probably the second one as well. If there's a privacy problem with Windows Update, it isn't IP addresses and statistics, but the fact that, as far as I understand, you can't actually know for certain what information is being sent. You obviously can't see the source code, and the traffic is encrypted (probably for a good reason particularly because it does deal with other data than just statistics).

At least with yum it's possible to check what is sent by using the source, or trusting that someone else does that and notices if there's something fishy about it.

Re:No (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819784)

That's why the parent said "in compiled form." Red Hat isn't publishing the IP address list it has collected, it is compiling the number of unique IP addresses seeking FC6 upgrades and using that number as a statistic.

This is no more 'evil' than the management of Dolphin Stadium in Miami counting the number of people who pass through the turnstiles and publishing that number to show how many people came to Miami to watch the Super Bowl.

Re:But.... (1)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819344)

This was my first thought. Aside from the "good" data which they've collected to help support the morale of the Linux movement what "other" (not bad, just other) data have they collected and who gets to look at it, share it, dissect it, analyze it, etc. etc. etc.

On a somewhat related tack: there's a massive increase in the number of employment opportunities for database techs with security clearances. I hope most people here can snap Legos together.

Re:But.... (1)

spevack (210449) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819702)

I don't really know how to prove to you that we're not doing any "evil" data collection, other than the fact that all of the conversations that have been had about Fedora and metrics have been had on publicly archived mailing lists, like the Fedora Advisory Board one, and if someone cared to go back and read the archives they could see a whole variety of ideas that were discussed -- including the ones that were specifically rejected because they would have been too invasive or "evil".

Got a specific concern? Reply and I'll address it the best I can.

Re:But.... (1)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819942)

> Got a specific concern? Reply and I'll address it the best I can.

Are the entire databases of collected information publicly available to the people who were responsible for creating the data to collect?

Or is that restricted, priveleged information? I'm not trying to pass judgement on what is "good" or what is "bad" data. I'm only pointing out that when data is collected, en masse, and only certain groups of people are allowed access to it, then those people will tend to make use of their priveleged data. Within any sufficiently large group of individuals with priveleged access to data there will be, statistically, a number of them who misuse that data for their own personal gain first and the gain of their best friends second. Zero day exploits.

That's just human behavior. I don't have any real big issue with collecting the data but, for the same reason why F/OSS is arguably preferable to closed source, it is a Bad Idea (tm) to create artificial priveleges with data sets: especially with large data sets which can be cross-referenced and correlated with real people.

Re:But.... (1)

Jason Earl (1894) | more than 7 years ago | (#17820864)

My take on this sort of thing is that whoever is hosting the servers should be free to collect whatever sort of stats they might want to collect. If you have a problem with that then use someone else's servers.

Servers, bandwidth, and the admins to make everything run just don't drop out of the sky.

Re:But.... (1)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 7 years ago | (#17821082)

> If you have a problem with that then use someone else's servers

Such a greedy, "mine mine mine!" point of view. There would be no internet if it weren't for the people who use the servers.

> to make everything run just don't drop out of the sky

This was a question of ethics; not finances.

Re:But.... (2, Insightful)

Florian Weimer (88405) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819508)

Doesn't collecting data make you evil?

Only if you call the process "activation" instead of "metrics".

That's why (1)

Chris whatever (980992) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819594)

that's why i only have unformated HD in my computer, i shall do no evil.

-Thus began the age of darkness-

Look out! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17819816)

Your computer is broadcasting an IP address!

Re:But.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17819840)

Depends. I don't mind Fedora having, say, an option to send your hardware config to the project, or even a method for logging unique IPs on first use of yum. Anything beyond that is getting intrusive... the day they start requiring registration or creating GUIDs is the day I give the shove to Fedora -- and I've been and RH users for 8-9 years.

Re:But.... (5, Informative)

spevack (210449) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819968)

the day they start requiring registration or creating GUIDs is the day I give the shove to Fedora -- and I've been and RH users for 8-9 years.

As the "Fedora Project Leader", the Fedora buck stops with me, so to speak.

And I promise you that I will NEVER require anyone to "register" Fedora in order to download updates, or stuff like that.

Neither I, nor the Fedora Board, which is Fedora's governing body, will allow some sort of "required registration" in order to get the full Fedora experience.

Download. Install. Update. If that's the extent of a person's interaction with Fedora, fine by me. We hope, of course, that there will be a fourth step, that being: Contribute

Re:But.... (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17822244)

Doesn't collecting data make you evil?
Counting the number of different visiting IP addresses is something every website out there has been doing for ages, with little ruckus. So if you're implying this is just like tracking more personal data such as a central repository of every website you visit, well, it isn't.

1,000,001 I can't switch but would like to (3, Interesting)

quixote9 (999874) | more than 7 years ago | (#17818906)

I have legacy hardware, and too little knowledge, so I'm too afraid to switch from Core 3 to 6. God only knows what would break, and I sure don't know enough to work around it. But if I could get 6, I'd be in their statistic too. There's bound to be more people like me, who can't get 6 for some reason. So that number is a low estimate!

Re:1,000,001 I can't switch but would like to (4, Informative)

Intron (870560) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819504)

So just fire up a live CD with a recent kernel and try it out. You don't have to upgrade if it doesn't work. Hardware drivers are in the kernel, so just testing the right kernel on your system will tell you whether it works (mostly).

FC3 uses kernel 2.6.9
FC6 uses kernel 2.6.18

Re:1,000,001 I can't switch but would like to (1)

quixote9 (999874) | more than 7 years ago | (#17822360)

I tried live CDs of Ubuntu Breezy, Dapper, and Edgy. (I'm an Ubuntu fan, for obvious reasons.) None of them would boot up, so I gave up. I probably gave up too soon. The machine is a Sharp MP30 laptop, which, since it's very light, is still worth several times its weight in gold for me. It came with Linux pre-installed and a bunch of custom drivers for some of the weird hardware. It's also my main computer with my entire life on it. If it crapped out, I'd just have to change my name and go start a new life in the South Seas. But I think, given some of the ideas mentioned on this thread, I'll have another shot at trying live CDs.

Re:1,000,001 I can't switch but would like to (2, Informative)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819584)

you need to learn to use Slackware, it is the best distro for old hardware...

Re:1,000,001 I can't switch but would like to (4, Informative)

Znork (31774) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819796)

Personally, I rsync from a mirror and have a local repository, so I have a whole bunch of machines that dont get counted. Stuff like that will result in the numbers being a bit off.

"so I'm too afraid to switch from Core 3 to 6."

If you upgrade that rarely, I'd suggest you take a look at CentOS. CentOS 4 will be a far smaller leap (RHEL4 is close to FC3/FC4), and you'd be on a maintained platform again.

NAT is even more significant. (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17820262)

Not to mention multiple computers hiding behind NAT; they would probably appear to be one system, due to the single IP address, unless the software for determining "hits" is smart enough to look at the transactions and realize that the same IP address just requested the same data 4 times over, and thus is probably 4 machines on a LAN behind a NAT router. I suspect that it is not, though, and thus you're almost certainly underestimating the number of installed systems.

That doesn't mean the metric is worthless though, if anything it makes it more useful to use in badgering hardware manufacturers, since you can pretty reliably quote it as a minimum. E.g., "there are at least 1M people using this software as of 1Q07, probably more..."

Re:NAT is even more significant. (2, Informative)

Karzz1 (306015) | more than 7 years ago | (#17821262)

From the article:
"We believe it is reasonable to equate a "new IP address checking in" with "a new installation of FC6", with the following caveats:
1. Users who have dynamic IP addresses will likely be counted multiple times, which inflates the number by some amount.
2. Users who are behind NAT, corporate proxies, or who rsync updates to a local mirror before updating will not be counted at all.

The anecdotal evidence that we receive from different groups, companies, and organizations makes it quite clear that group (2) is significantly larger than group (1). As such, we believe that the true numbers in the field are higher than the numbers on this page. "

Re:1,000,001 I can't switch but would like to (1)

init100 (915886) | more than 7 years ago | (#17821328)

If you upgrade that rarely, I'd suggest you take a look at CentOS. CentOS 4 will be a far smaller leap (RHEL4 is close to FC3/FC4), and you'd be on a maintained platform again.

Or if he waited that long, why not wait for CentOS 5 (based on FC6), which is due out 2-3 months after RHEL5, which is due out before the end of February.

Re:1,000,001 I can't switch but would like to (2, Interesting)

chrwei (771689) | more than 7 years ago | (#17820652)

i had no idea people still had these kinds of problems, they are what drove me from RH/Mandrake years ago. I moved to Debian Sarge (before it was "stable" even) and even did a dist-upgrade from sarge to ubuntu on one system. "apt" upgrades are rarely a problem even when the system is "live" and not booted off a CD, and never an issue if done from the console so that when upgrading libs the X server doens't crash on you.

Oldest system I do this with a 486DX2 50Mhz with 32 Meg ram and there's never a problem. It's actualy an HP Network Scanjet 5 with an Ubuntu "command line" install and the Enhanced [madole.net] scripts to run the interface, no idea where else a 486 with linux would be all that usefull to maintain though I'm sure there are some out there.

Re:1,000,001 I can't switch but would like to (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 7 years ago | (#17822142)

"apt" upgrades are ... never an issue if done from the console so that when upgrading libs the X server doens't crash on you.
...as long as you stay within some fairly generous sanity rules: (1) if you're running unstable, keep it moderately up-to-date (say, monthly), and (2) switching distros (Ubuntu -> Debian, but also probably the reverse) *will* fail and/or break things.

Re:1,000,001 I can't switch but would like to (1)

chrwei (771689) | more than 7 years ago | (#17822288)

it's called "unstable" for a reason, if you are running it, you should expect problems anyway. sarge to ubunutu 5.04 on a server (no ubuntu-desktop package madness) and it was fairly smooth, I think i had to remove a couple oddball things that had new names and reinstall them, but it wasn't a hassle since they weren't "core" packages and it was all manageable from aptitude. I haven't tried going ubuntu->debian, and I'm not sure why anyone would want to for a "stable" version.

Saddly... (4, Interesting)

DrYak (748999) | more than 7 years ago | (#17818908)

Saddly this metric will be very quickly attacked because of all users who have broadband connections with IP changing every 24 hours.

Maybe counting how many different IPs downloaded *1* given critical update will be more precise (based on the assumption that even users with non permanent IP will download the patch once to secure their machines, and then won't download it again).

But even if it lacks precision, it is still a good indicator that Linux *IS* in fact popular and much more widespread than people think.
It just lacks sales figures to prove it. ...

Specially when compared to the so-many "Vista didn't get a warm welcome" reports we read a lot those days.

Re:Saddly... (2, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 7 years ago | (#17818972)

Saddly this metric will be very quickly attacked because of all users who have broadband connections with IP changing every 24 hours.
All users? I don't think my cable IP address (dynamically assigned) has changed in over a year.

Re:Saddly... (1)

Peter La Casse (3992) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819262)

because of all users who have broadband connections with IP changing every 24 hours.

All users?

You misplaced the invisible parenthesis: "all (users who have broadband connections with IP changing...)"

"with" must refer to "connections" and cannot refer to "users' in that sentence.

Re:Saddly... (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819266)

All users? I don't think my cable IP address (dynamically assigned) has changed in over a year.

Comcast users usually don't see an IP change unless they powercycle their modem and restart their computer or router. When I was on ATTBI, my IP remained the same until we switched to Comcast's IP block.

Some DSL users constantly gain a new IP when their IP lease is up. It's unfortunate that DSL has gone this route as it used to be a guaranteed static IP.

But in general, this "statistic" means absolutely squat. No one is going to give a shit if 100 million people downloaded something -- Microsoft is what managers hear the most about and that's what they are generally inclined to want.

Re:Saddly... (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819372)

Comcast users usually don't see an IP change unless they powercycle their modem and restart their computer or router. When I was on ATTBI, my IP remained the same until we switched to Comcast's IP block.
Well, I have Comcast cable and neither rebooting, nor powercycling the cable modem will get a new IP address. I think it is tied to the computer's MAC address. When we moved house, I got a new Cable account, a new cable modem and even then, I still got the same IP address at my new house (I think it was still ATTBI then).

Re:Saddly... (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819414)

Well, I have Comcast cable and neither rebooting, nor powercycling the cable modem will get a new IP address. I think it is tied to the computer's MAC address. When we moved house, I got a new Cable account, a new cable modem and even then, I still got the same IP address at my new house (I think it was still ATTBI then).

You lease is tied to both MAC addresses but it will expire over time. If no one else is in line to nab the IP you are using when your lease expires and you restart/powercycle, you'll regain it.

Re:Saddly... (1)

spevack (210449) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819838)

But in general, this "statistic" means absolutely squat. No one is going to give a shit if 100 million people downloaded something -- Microsoft is what managers hear the most about and that's what they are generally inclined to want.


The value of these numbers is not solely determined by the degree to which the above statement is true, IMHO.

Re:Saddly... (1)

tinkerghost (944862) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819966)

But in general, this "statistic" means absolutely squat. No one is going to give a shit if 100 million people downloaded something -- Microsoft is what managers hear the most about and that's what they are generally inclined to want.
The point is that if you can go to ATI or Netgear and say 'you are going to loose X million sales if you don't develop a Linux driver', then ATI & Netgear will pay more attention than if you go to them & say 'we want drivers for Linux'. It's about numbers. When Marketdroids see multiple million potential sales walking away, they start paying attention - fringe nutters are optional.

Re:Saddly... (1)

aichpvee (631243) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819480)

My cable with its supposedly non-static IP hasn't changed in over 2.

Re:Saddly... (5, Informative)

spevack (210449) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819026)

Actually, the Fedora folks address that very point. Quoting from the Fedora Project wiki, and it's page on Statistics:

"Accuracy of metrics

We believe it is reasonable to equate a "new IP address checking in" with "a new installation of FC6", with the following caveats:

1. Users who have dynamic IP addresses will likely be counted multiple times, which inflates the number by some amount.

2. Users who are behind NAT, corporate proxies, or who rsync updates to a local mirror before updating will not be counted at all.

The anecdotal evidence that we receive from different groups, companies, and organizations makes it quite clear that group (2) is significantly larger than group (1). As such, we believe that the true numbers in the field are higher than the numbers on this page."

Re:Saddly... (1)

unoengborg (209251) | more than 7 years ago | (#17820160)

The question is, will dynamic IP result in too many or too few hits.
If you count the IP during installation, you are most likely to complete that installation using the same IP. Then the next time sombody installs using that IP it will not be counted as new. So both dynamic IP and people behind NAT might actually give a lower estimate, than the actual value.

Happily (1)

Kludge (13653) | more than 7 years ago | (#17820478)

I'll concur with that quote. I have enough Fedora boxes behind NATs at home and at work to make up for several dozen dynamic IPs.

Re:Saddly... (1)

SDEggbert (801442) | more than 7 years ago | (#17820720)

Not to dispute their research, but its at least interesting to think about this:

the group 2 you referred to won't be counted; that is the total number counted was less the group 2 users, exactly.

The group 1 you referred to were counted more than once (note that this is different than twice). They could have been counted 5 times each; that is the total number was greater than the group 1 users times 5.

Thus, the group 2 users would have to be significantly larger indeed.

Read the summary, at least (2, Insightful)

ukatoton (999756) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819122)

the team decided to track the number of users with unique IP addresses who connected to yum in search of updates for a new installation of FC6
.

It's how any new systems are being checked for the first time, and most people probably aren't reinstalling it constantly and downloading updates, so there's very little attacking you could do to these figures.

Re:Saddly... (2, Informative)

Lord_Slepnir (585350) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819254)

The numbers will be inflated, but also deflated by places like the one where I work that have multiple FC6 hosts behind the same router.

Re:Saddly... (1)

kaehler (43680) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819806)

>addly this metric will be very quickly attacked because of all users who have broadband connections with IP changing every 24 hours.

What about users with networks in hidden networks. I have 3 Linux boxes on a static DSL in a hidden network. My 3 machines will be counted as 1...

Re:Saddly... (1)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 7 years ago | (#17820034)

Dunno. I've had that happen, but its quite rare. Lately I've had the same IP addy for over a month on cable. Either way it's gotta screw up somebody's statistical sample. I have to wonder if there's any "map" of the rate at which broadband providers change addy leases vs geographical area, for instance.

Re:Saddly... (1)

HobophobE (101209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17820176)

If you want a more accurate count couldn't they create a dummy package ('fedora-stats-meta-#.#.#' where # represents the version info) and update it with a new version, and count that specific package? Possibly need a faulty depends clause on a critical package to 'force' installation, or otherwise leave it opt-in with some sort of visible request that people install it.

Even then it'll only give a number of downloads, which differs from number of people and number of installs. Some people have a number of installs of whatever distro they run and will no doubt run one box as a repository cache for their others.

Commercial support (1)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17818920)

I don't think commercial support is about the number of users, it's more about not wanting their precious IP laid bare to anyone who can download the kernel source (ie. everyone).

Also, in these times of big companies patenting everything the source could reveal infringement.

Re:Commercial support (1)

chrwei (771689) | more than 7 years ago | (#17821106)

you mean like nVidia, who has some the best non-libre linux drivers in the entire hardware industry? "support" != "source code"

Distinct, not "unique" (4, Insightful)

ColonelPanic (138077) | more than 7 years ago | (#17818938)

IP addresses are necessarily unique ("one of a kind"). You mean "distinct" here.

Fuck twofo (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17818956)

Twofo [twofo.co.uk] Is Dying

DC++ [dcpp.net] hub.twofo.co.uk:4144

It is official; Netcraft confirms: Twofo is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured University of Warwick [warwick.ac.uk] filesharing community when ITS confirmed that Twofo total share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all file sharing. Coming hot on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Twofo has lost more share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Student comprehensive leeching test.

You don't need to be one of the Hub Operators to predict Twofo's future. The hand writing is on the toilet wall: Twofo faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo because Twofo is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo. As many of us are already aware, Twofo continues to lose users. Fines and disconnections flow like a river of feces [tubgirl.com] .

N00b Campus users are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their total share. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Twofo sharers fool_on_the_hill and Twinklefeet only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Sources indicate that there are at most 150 users in the hub. How many filelists have been downloaded? Let's see. 719. But 1621 IP addresses have been logged, and 1727 nicks have been sighted connecting to one user over the last term. How many searches are there? 600 searches in 3 hours. The highest sharer on campus, known as "firstchoice", or Andrew.Maddison@warwick.ac.uk in real life, was sharing over 1 TiB, despite working in ITS [warwick.ac.uk] and not being on the resnet. He's only there so people off campus who think they're too good for bittorrent can continue to abuse the University's internet connection.

Due to troubles at the University of Warwick, lack of internet bandwidth, enforcements of Acceptable Usage Policies, abysmal sharing, retarded leechers, clueless n00bs, and ITS fining and disconnecting users, Twofo has no future. All major student surveys show that Twofo has steadily declined in file share. Twofo is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Twofo is to survive at all it will be among p2p hardcore fuckwits, desperate to grab stuff for free off the internet. Nothing short of a miracle could save Twofo from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo is dead.

Fact: Twofo is dying

Nobody cares (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17820038)

It is official; Netcraft confirms: Nobody cares

Fact: Twofo is dead. It smells.

Twofo: we didn't know you. We don't care.

Fuck twofo up again (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17818960)

Twofo [twofo.co.uk] Is Dying

DC++ [dcpp.net] hub.twofo.co.uk:4144

It is official; Netcraft confirms: Twofo is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured University of Warwick [warwick.ac.uk] filesharing community when ITS confirmed that Twofo total share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all file sharing. Coming hot on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Twofo has lost more share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Student comprehensive leeching test.

You don't need to be one of the Hub Operators to predict Twofo's future. The hand writing is on the toilet wall: Twofo faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo because Twofo is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo. As many of us are already aware, Twofo continues to lose users. Fines and disconnections flow like a river of feces [tubgirl.com] .

N00b Campus users are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their total share. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Twofo sharers fool_on_the_hill and Twinklefeet only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Sources indicate that there are at most 150 users in the hub. How many filelists have been downloaded? Let's see. 719. But 1621 IP addresses have been logged, and 1727 nicks have been sighted connecting to one user over the last term. How many searches are there? 600 searches in 3 hours. The highest sharer on campus, known as "firstchoice", or Andrew.Maddison@warwick.ac.uk in real life, was sharing over 1 TiB, despite working in ITS [warwick.ac.uk] and not being on the resnet. He's only there so people off campus who think they're too good for bittorrent can continue to abuse the University's internet connection.

Due to troubles at the University of Warwick, lack of internet bandwidth, enforcements of Acceptable Usage Policies, abysmal sharing, retarded leechers, clueless n00bs, and ITS fining and disconnecting users, Twofo has no future. All major student surveys show that Twofo has steadily declined in file share. Twofo is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Twofo is to survive at all it will be among p2p hardcore fuckwits, desperate to grab stuff for free off the internet. Nothing short of a miracle could save Twofo from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo is dead.

Fact: Twofo is dying

People != Computers (2, Insightful)

RyoShin (610051) | more than 7 years ago | (#17818986)

Well, if you can go to them and say, "Hey, there's millions of people using this,"
Actually, it's a million computers using this (that's actually at least a million computers, as multiple PCs may be behind one public IP). Especially amongst the more computer-oriented people (of which the Linux community has many), it's not uncommon to have more than one computer running the same OS. I myself have three computers, two of which run Windows (the third is being put together). While these are tied to one DSL line, one of them, a laptop, may travel to other wireless networks and thus change IPs, so I could be recorded under two unique IPs but be only one person.

Not saying there isn't a vast number of Linux users (I'm sure there are well over a million individual Linux users - that's a third of 1% of just the American population), just that numbers from data like this can be skewed.

Re:People != Computers (2, Insightful)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819184)

You have it backwards. Are you going to download 3 fedora CDs because you have 3 computers? Maybe if they are differing archs... but that's not normally the case. Thus, the number would be LARGER than the one they gave, because many people use the same CD for more than one install, give their CDs away after using them, etc.

Re:People != Computers (2, Informative)

RyoShin (610051) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819292)

You are quite correct; one person would not download the CD three times.

However, that's not how they're collecting the data:

the team decided to track the number of users with unique IP addresses who connected to yum in search of updates
While you need only one CD to do multiple installs, it is my understanding that each machine has to run YUM itself. They've also thought of what you mentioned.

According to Spevack, it's not enough to simply count how many times the distribution has been downloaded
Now, the article does go on to say

Cacti tracks the number of unique IP addresses that connect to yum with a new installation of FC6
So, if YUM/the tracking software can differentiate between a fresh install and a regular update, then the number of connections better correlates to new users.

Re:People != Computers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17819306)

That may be the case, but when it comes to hardware vendors, I'm sure they consider the number of purchased units just as important as the number of users. A million computers running linux OSes may be used by less than half the number of users, but the number of units of hardware needing drivers etc is still proportional to the number of machines in use...thus the demand for drivers would still be significant, even if the number of users is not as large as it would be for users of other OSes.

Re:People != Computers (1)

PolR (645007) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819342)

This is good enough for the intended purpose. Every computer is hardware that may use a peripheral device. Vendors will have to pay attention and develop drivers if the numbers are high enough.

Re:People != Computers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17819936)

On the other side of that coin, plenty of people dual or triple boot. Is my roommate who downloaded and installed Ubuntu on a valiant but failed attempt to escape WoW as much as a Linux user as you or I?

Ironically, if WoW had a published Linux port, he'd probably not have switched. The hope was that he'd get more homework and projects accomplished without distractions, but found that there weren't any good pSPICE alternatives. Oregano looks promising to me but it doesn't label voltage probes or do other small things that he needed.

Re:People != Computers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17820362)

I have one computer, and four people use it.

It is debian, by the way.

Impossible to install without connecting (5, Informative)

currivan (654314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819030)

I just installed FC6 on a machine yesterday, and they made it impossible to do anything without connecting to their server. I'm keeping the machine off the network, but apparently there's no way to install packages from the DVD without first downloading the update lists from their mirrors.

The Add/Remove gui (and yum) crashes if DNS isn't available. After some research, I was able to hack the yum .repo files to point to the DVD instead of the internet, but it still crashes with mysterious errors about media uris. I finally gave up and installed Ubuntu instead. So no, this doesn't help the whole Linux community. We'd be furious is Microsoft imposed this sort of requirement on new installations.

Re:Impossible to install without connecting (2, Informative)

unchiujar (1030510) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819146)

What about yum --disablerepo=* localinstall or rpm ?

Re:Impossible to install without connecting (1)

currivan (654314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819298)

I used --disablerepo to get rid of the ones that pointed to the web, and only included my custom DVD repo, but yum dies with another error about a media uri that didn't appear anywhere in the files. It mangled the file:///media/disk uri and put a bunch of random digits in front of it, then complained it doesn't exist. Maybe I could debug it if I actually had the relevant packages on the machine, but there's no reason to put up with this. I shouldn't even have to know about yum, let alone rpm, to install a fresh system on standard hardware. There's probably some magic answer I don't know about, but we should be past that by now.

Re:Impossible to install without connecting (2, Informative)

jon_burgess (596481) | more than 7 years ago | (#17820068)

Unfortunately the repodata provided on the CD & DVD is not useable by yum but creating a local yum repository [city-fan.org] is quite easy once you know how.

Installing packages from the original media is great just after you've loaded the system, but remember the good old days when you would be given the a prompt like: to complete this change you need to insert disk 3 of the installation media. Good luck finding the original disks a year or two after installing the PC.

I believe the majority people are happy that yum is preconfigured to download and install the most up to date version of a package from the internet whenever they need to install something new.

Re:Impossible to install without connecting (1)

quahaug (409357) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819286)

Seems like others disros are getting more than CNR from LinSpire.

Re:Impossible to install without connecting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17819400)

Just mount the DVD, cd into the directory with all the RPMs and do a 'rpm -ivh name_of_some.rpm'. Pretty simple.

Re:Impossible to install without connecting (4, Informative)

LnxAddct (679316) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819808)

I just installed FC6 on my macbook pro over the weekend, and I had no internet connection at all during the entire process (I regularly work offline). It worked fine, so I can only assume that your case is an isolated incident.
Regards,
Steve

Huh? (2, Informative)

EXTomar (78739) | more than 7 years ago | (#17821054)

I just did a retro-fit upgrade and an install on two machines and neither went to the "yum" repository mirrors to do an update till after they finished their first reboot where I had to activate the update manually (and get the gpg keys installed).

- I remember that "install" at some point gave me an option to install against latest package in the "yum" repositories, which I do not do for speed.
- I remember the "upgrade" and "install" screens from Anaconda being different. The "upgrade" never asked me to update against the "yum" repositories.

"pup", which is the graphical tool analog to "yum", handles rotating through the mirrors properly as far as I remember where it just fails over to the next if the current one can't be reached. I've had my Internet die while trying to do this, I don't recall it ever crashing on me and this is doing many installs and upgrades across every version of Fedora.

I don't blame you for switching to something else given these problems. I'm just stumped how you got these problems.

Re:Huh? (1)

currivan (654314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17821474)

I did a clean install on an x86-64 machine. I don't remember being prompted about whether to use the latest repositories. Yes, it installed and rebooted, but then I couldn't use the Add tool or yum to install any extra software off the DVD. This was after I'd had to resolve another problem where it didn't recognize my monitor correctly and put me in a broken video mode, so I was running out of patience. I did find some internet confirmation that there was a problem in FC6 with the .repo files, but it might just be in the 64bit version.

Sweet (1)

quantaman (517394) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819088)

One issue they mention (and many people here will mention) is

"1) Users who have dynamic IP addresses will likely be counted multiple times, which inflates the number by some amount."

To counteract this once you hit the 6 month mark you simply delete IPs that haven't been used in 1-2 months, by doing that you pratically guarante that whatever number you have is an underestimate and that number becomes a lot more authoritative.

Still it's awesome to see the numbers for Fedora are that high considering the dissapointing Linux penetration I see even among CS people. Heck we could all band together and form our own city! We could call it Fedoraville and our sports teams could compete against our rival city Ubuntuville!!

Re:Sweet (1)

unchiujar (1030510) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819204)

I'm ready to move. So where should we put the city ?

Re:Sweet (4, Funny)

quantaman (517394) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819378)

I'm ready to move.So where should we put the city ?
Well I was thinking Canada or Europe, heck why not Luxembourg [wikipedia.org] ? With a population of only 465,000 we'd made a majority of the population and be able to form a governmenmt.

Welcome to Fedoraland!

Re:Sweet (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819678)

... why not Luxembourg? With a population of only 465,000 we'd made a majority of the population and be able to form a governmenmt.

For starters because Luxembourg won't let you move in and get citizenship all that easily.

And the population is rich enough to enforce their will: Pretty much every adult is an officer of several international corporations, at some serious pay each. This is because Luxembourg's laws make it advantageous to headquarter there, but require at least one citizen as a major officer.

Besides: Taking over by settling creates serious (sometimes deadly) opposition from those already there who FORMERLY ran their own government.

If you want to create a settlement where you can run your own government up to a significant level, try Oregon. If they remain true to their history, once you've established a significant colony of like-minded people, if you have a beef with the rest of your county they'll split it and give you your own county composed of you and your like-minded settlers. Then you can elect your own supervisors and sheriff, tax each other, maintain the roads your way, etc.

(Which is what makes the Ragneeshi's attempted takeover of Wasco county - by food-poisoning a salad bar at a local restaurant shortly before the election - such a stupid move: The state had already offered them a county composed of their own settlement and the roads to it.)

Re:Sweet (1)

quantaman (517394) | more than 7 years ago | (#17820076)

... why not Luxembourg? With a population of only 465,000 we'd made a majority of the population and be able to form a governmenmt.

For starters because Luxembourg won't let you move in and get citizenship all that easily.

And the population is rich enough to enforce their will: Pretty much every adult is an officer of several international corporations, at some serious pay each. This is because Luxembourg's laws make it advantageous to headquarter there, but require at least one citizen as a major officer.

Besides: Taking over by settling creates serious (sometimes deadly) opposition from those already there who FORMERLY ran their own government.

If you want to create a settlement where you can run your own government up to a significant level, try Oregon. If they remain true to their history, once you've established a significant colony of like-minded people, if you have a beef with the rest of your county they'll split it and give you your own county composed of you and your like-minded settlers. Then you can elect your own supervisors and sheriff, tax each other, maintain the roads your way, etc.

(Which is what makes the Ragneeshi's attempted takeover of Wasco county - by food-poisoning a salad bar at a local restaurant shortly before the election - such a stupid move: The state had already offered them a county composed of their own settlement and the roads to it.)
-1 Buzzkill

Re:Sweet (4, Funny)

gclef (96311) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819930)

Fedoraland? Bah. Tuxembourg!

RH response to Ubuntu's 8 million number? (4, Informative)

Locutus (9039) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819110)

Given the numbers coming out, I'd think that it sure can't hurt for these guys to post the number they are.

Here(2nd page ) Mark Shuttleworth mentioned Ubuntu having 8 million active users:

http://redherring.com/PrintArticle.aspx?a=20497&se ctor=Briefings [redherring.com]

Now what are the hardware vendors waiting for? Permission from Microsoft?

LoB

Re:RH response to Ubuntu's 8 million number? (5, Informative)

spevack (210449) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819366)

The key difference, IMHO, is that in Fedora we are trying to demonstrate *where* our numbers are coming from, as opposed to just giving a number with no context.

It's also important to realize that this metric is just for Fedora Core 6, not "all instances of Fedora 1-6".

Re:RH response to Ubuntu's 8 million number? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17820454)

Yeah, the Fedora numbers at least have some actual data behind them. And there are LOTS of people still running earlier versions, who weren't even counted, as you noted. I'd take Ubuntu's numbers with a gigantic grain of salt, Shuttleworh has a tendency to talk out of his rear end quite a bit, and is a bit of a megalomaniac.

Re:RH response to Ubuntu's 8 million number? (2, Insightful)

Locutus (9039) | more than 7 years ago | (#17820756)

I wasn't interested in a "my numbers are bigger than your" discussion and obviously, there are more TOTAL Fedora user than the number of Fedora 6 users.

And yes, it's a big deal having data and the technique for getting those numbers. Shuttleworth didn't state where the numbers came from but also wasn't asked. My guess is those numbers came from their date servers since I've seen default Ubuntu installations setting /etc/default/ntpdate to point to ubuntu.com servers.

Anyway, it is great these numbers are getting out there and even better when they can be validated.

Now, the problem will be dealing with the bitch-slapping hardware vendors are going to get from Microsoft for even saying the "L" word.

LoB

Re:RH response to Ubuntu's 8 million number? (1)

zCyl (14362) | more than 7 years ago | (#17822314)

It's also important to realize that this metric is just for Fedora Core 6, not "all instances of Fedora 1-6".
Precisely. The first thing I thought is that these numbers will be really insightful after they're collected for a year or two, and if many of the other major Linux update sources start collecting them as well.

Re:RH response to Ubuntu's 8 million number? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17819634)

Now what are the hardware vendors waiting for? Permission from Microsoft?


Yes.

Why only now? (4, Insightful)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819112)

Personally I don't understand shyness/lack of will/underrating ourselves in these case. Look at Firefox, they made whole PR campange around those numbers! And if they won't matter....THEY DO. They are true numbers who can be verifired, checked, compared, etc.

I think most of problem of using meme "look at the numbers, user count are huge, man" is that there's lot of geeks which don't see this argument as simply valid (those numbers can't be wrong, etc. etc.). They would like to better convince hardware developers that they MUST get those damn specs (by some hidden morale or simple common sense, which, I agree, exists in this case too) out rather trying to wow them to community side (presentations, numbers, proof of concept (you don't have to care about driver, etc.)).

We need more actions like SpreadFirefox, period. Done right, they just work.

best effort + transparency (5, Informative)

spevack (210449) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819202)

I'm the guy who actually maintains that Statistics page on the Fedora wiki.

The real "story" here is a couple of things:

THING 1 -- We're making the best effort that we can at showing the world how many installations of Fedora Core 6 we know about.

THING 2 -- We're being upfront about the assumptions and caveats that go along with that number. Quoting:

"Accuracy of metrics

We believe it is reasonable to equate a "new IP address checking in" with "a new installation of FC6", with the following caveats:

1. Users who have dynamic IP addresses will likely be counted multiple times, which inflates the number by some amount.
2. Users who are behind NAT, corporate proxies, or who rsync updates to a local mirror before updating will not be counted at all.

The anecdotal evidence that we receive from different groups, companies, and organizations makes it quite clear that group (2) is significantly larger than group (1). As such, we believe that the true numbers in the field are higher than the numbers on this page."

THING 3 -- We're also being upfront about how that number is generated.

I'm not trying to spin the data in any way. I'm just putting it up there, and trying to do so as objectively as possible. Anyone can draw their own conclusions, or compare it to data from other distributions, if you can find similar reporting.

Re:best effort + transparency (1)

schwaang (667808) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819870)

It's cool that Fedora is sharing this stuff openly. It would be great if you could also be upfront about the plans for FC7. Which variant of these FC7 Metrics proposals [fedoraproject.org] have you decided on going with?

Re:best effort + transparency (2, Informative)

spevack (210449) | more than 7 years ago | (#17820164)

Well, we'll keep doing what we currently are doing. In addition, the idea currently under consideration is an OPTIONAL screen in firstboot where a user can choose to let us know more about their hardware and/or installed package set.

KEY POINT TO MAKE: If a user says "no, go away and leave me alone", we will respect that.

To anyone who wants to be part of the discussion, feel free to follow the Fedora Infrastructure list.

http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infr astructure-list [redhat.com]

Re:best effort + transparency (1)

schwaang (667808) | more than 7 years ago | (#17820576)

KEY POINT TO MAKE: If a user says "no, go away and leave me alone", we will respect that.
Hey thanks for that -- sounds good to me.

It would be interesting to see stats for CPU and video for FC7 installs, I hope you guys will publish some of that.

A Million+ Fedora 6 Installs (1)

bohemian72 (898284) | more than 7 years ago | (#17819492)

One thing I haven't noticed being mentioned much is that this only counts the Fedora 6 installs. This would have to be a low ball figure as there are so many machines with some other distro installed on it that wouldn't for any reason go to download a patch from Fedora. If they've already admitted that their numbers are low because the factor that causes it to be low is greater than the factor that causes an overstatement, and they're already estimating a million, once you count in all the other distros, I think 'millions' is quite reasonable.

Re:A Million+ Fedora 6 Installs (1)

pilbender (925017) | more than 7 years ago | (#17821278)

Microsoft counts license sales. I don't use Windows, except at work. I get counted for a bunch of Windows installs. I have a whole bunch of Windows license keys I've never even used. I use Slackware Linux. I download and I install on several machines, like 6 or so.

So... personally, I count for many Windows installs I don't have and I don't count for many Linux installs that I do have.

I've always thought actual people using Linux is *much* higher than estimates based on people like *myself* alone!

Re:A Million+ Fedora 6 Installs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17821544)

Exactly.

I installed FC 2 once. Once I got a look a the lack of standards adherence and listened to it constantly thrashing the disk, I uninstalled it the next day before it destroyed the hard disk with continuous thrashing. (with nothing running) I swore never to install Fedora again. Besides, the whole concept of RedHat makes me want to puke.

I had no such problems with FreeBSD.

Re:A Million+ Fedora 6 Installs (1)

init100 (915886) | more than 7 years ago | (#17821642)

One thing I haven't noticed being mentioned much is that this only counts the Fedora 6 installs.

Which brings up another question: How many installs are there of all Red Hat and derivatives, including Fedora, RHEL, CentOS, ScientificLinux, etc, etc? That would be interesting to know. And then that's still only Red Hat and derivatives, there is also xUbuntu, Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, Mandriva, you name it. I'd certainly guess that there are at the very least tens of millions of Linux installations across the world.

Microsoft and Apple numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17819822)

So with Fedora having over 1 million users, and Ubuntu having 8 million users, how does this compare with the installed base of Microsoft and/or Apple?

The marketing companies have been claiming that Linux has an installed based of 1-5%, and that Microsoft has 90-95% of all installed PCs. If there are about 10 million Linux PC's, does that mean there are really 1 billion PC's out there? I think not. Which means the commercial marketing estimates are way too low.

My six machines share on IP address (1)

kbahey (102895) | more than 7 years ago | (#17820542)

I use Kubuntu, but the concept is the same. When I use aptitude, it hits something.archive.ubuntu.com, and I get counted as one person, since I am behind NAT.

However, I have six machines, all of them on Ubuntu server or Kubuntu. One is AMD64, the rest are i386.

So, that skews the numbers for sure.

I wish the Linux Counter is taken more seriously. They used to put an automated email message in Slackware, so the likelyhood of you registering was high. Otherwise, it is only good for comparative studies only, not absolute numbers.

i'll take redhat enterprise linux over anyother os (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17820750)

centos is a sweet RedHat enterprise linux clone with full compatiblity to it. rhel is a true enterprise class operating sysetm and it's based on fedora core. i don't know why anybody would want to run anything else. I started out with redhat 4.0 and i have to say, redhat puts out the best distribution out there. If I were to dual boot with something other than centos, i'd choose debian, ubuntu, or slackware. From what I hear, the other two enterprise linux distributions out there Mandriva Enterprise and Suse Enterpise don't release the source code as readily as RedHat does, hence the RedHat Enterprise Linux code base has greater market saturation through projects like Centos along with other rhel clones.

IP miscounts users (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17821166)

Hey Redhat/Fedora!

You miscounted users at my IP; there are 3 FC6 computers behind my firewall (FC4) for 3 different people. Please update your database.

Thank you!

Numbers for other reasons (1)

KClaisse (1038258) | more than 7 years ago | (#17821598)

I was under the impression that these numbers meant much more than just possible driver support. Red Hat was doing an evaluation of Fedora, and for the increased funds, they needed these numbers.

Graphs and Visual Aids (1)

potmos (604320) | more than 7 years ago | (#17822048)

I hate it when people release stats in pure numbers in tables. They should also put some of that data in graph form so we can visual see what's going on. I dumped some of this data into Swivel [swivel.com] and here are the graphs I got out of it:

Connections to Fedoras YUM repo
Unique IPs by Week [swivel.com]
New Unique IPs by Week [swivel.com]
Trend by Week [swivel.com]

Visitors to fedoraproject.org
Unique IPs [swivel.com]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?