On Tue 08 May 2001 00:48, you wrote:
> From: "Calin Damian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > I apreciate your care and advices. Please read all messages in
> > thread and the _ENTIRE_ message you _replied_ to to understand
> > what I had to say. Then, if you still don't understand I will
> > explain you on your private e-mail address (to protect the
> > subscribers of this mailing list of unwanted traffic).
>
> I've read the whole (tedious) thread. I'm afraid the lack of understanding
In any moment it was not tedious.
> appears to be entirely on your side of the argument. The people who
> actually know how the code works have said that it wouldn't be worth the
> effort, and the response has been "it's my computer and I should be
> allowed make this choice!".
Great! So I have the right can keep my mouth down.
>
> It might be trivially easy to implement the change you are requesting, but
> arguing for it on the basis that you've configured your web servers to
> create monthly logs, when you want daily statistics, doesn't put you on
> very firm ground. That the thing you want to measure is the least reliable
Calin put you on a heavy logs fact, but average user situation my vary.
> "statistic" available from Analog further weakens your position. (Until
> recently, Analog didn't even include the host count in the general summary
> unless you explicitly enabled the Host report).
I think it's a obsession to _not_ implement a unique ip feature. Last
year when I readed analog docs I've observed Stephen toughts about marketdroids
and their request about unique hosts stats. I agree with Stephen totaly, but
dicussion on this topic make me think that all anti-uniqueip feature
overreact.
>
> The bottom line is that simply getting a count of unique hosts in a given
> period is actually a fairly trivial task. (You can do it in a single line
> of shell script). But Analog has always de-emphasised the host count as a
Again, you don't read emails with attention. _Please_ take a 300M log file
on your HDD, make your nice script and send us your CPU, mem loading/benchmarks
and your computer specs (cpu mhz, mem, O.S. etc).
Are you think I'm stuppid? Make this then
> useful measure, and you haven't presented any argument as to why that
> approach should be modified.
Plenty of args. Again read emails. Please combat Calin and my arguments
one by one, and all it's fine.
>
> Analog isn't developed by popular vote, but if it was, you'd lose your
> deposit.
Fine, so we invite as to look on some GPL code to make my desired changes.
kind regards,
--
Claudiu Costin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
| This is the analog-help mailing list. To unsubscribe from this
| mailing list, go to
| http://lists.isite.net/listgate/analog-help/unsubscribe.html
|
| List archives are available at
| http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
| http://lists.isite.net/listgate/analog-help/archives/
| http://www.tallylist.com/archives/index.cfm/mlist.7
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
