[Dirk Eddelbuettel] > [1] I removed the entry "unknown" -- this corresponds to assuming that > "unknown" as population corresponds to the distribution of all "known" > dists shown here. Lacking knowledge of what drives "unknown", this > appears fair. If someone has a breakdown of "unknown", I will gladly > use it.
'unknown' are the submissions without arch info, most likely machines running debian/woody. It might be fair to assume that the unknown population have the same arch distribution, and it might not. I suspect some archs are over-represented in debian/sid and debian/sarge, and others are over-represented in debian/woody. But I have nothing to back up my suspicion. :) As for the accuracy with such small population, I believe the relative distribution accuracy is very high. It haven't changed much the last few years, while the number of submissions have more than doubled. Not too long ago, the i386 count was split it two, i386 and amd64, but the sum of those two are very close to the value previously used by i386. Another minor piece of information to consider, is that slightly less than 200 amd64 machines are from one cluster in Sweden. If we ignore this cluster, the amd64 population count would end up somewhere between powerpc and sparc. (I know this because I could see the steep growth, and was approached by the cluster maintainer asking if it was ok for 200 identical machines to report to popcon. My answer was that this was ok, as long as the machines were real machines and not just for example chroots. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
