FreeBSD branches stats
Oliver Fromme
olli at lurza.secnetix.de
Mon Oct 23 08:25:07 PDT 2006
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
More information about the freebsd-chat
mailing list