Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-09 Thread Kevin Kofler
Mail Lists wrote: > Yes we've had bad decisions (kde 4.0 in my view) It shall be noted that KDE 4.0 was NOT an update (we did NOT push it to F8 for obvious reasons) and that the updates actually brought it up to 4.1 and later 4.2. Now I'm not convinced shipping 4.0 was a mistake in the first

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-09 Thread Kevin Kofler
Will Woods wrote: > So the only unknown is: exactly what percentage of our *current* users > are willing to accept a loss of stability in favor of New Hotness? But > I'm fairly certain this question is *irrelevant*. Our current users' > expectations are already set by their past experience with Fed

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-08 Thread Thomas Janssen
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Till Maas wrote: > On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 12:34:03PM -0500, Will Woods wrote: > >> Adam's poll results are valid *only* for Fedora users who: >> >> a) Are members of the Fedora forum, >> b) Enthusiasts/power-users to the degree that they would notice a new >> thre

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-08 Thread Orcan Ogetbil
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Till Maas wrote: > On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 12:34:03PM -0500, Will Woods wrote: > >> Adam's poll results are valid *only* for Fedora users who: >> >> a) Are members of the Fedora forum, >> b) Enthusiasts/power-users to the degree that they would notice a new >> thread

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-08 Thread Peter Boy
Am Montag, den 08.03.2010, 12:34 -0500 schrieb Will Woods: > Our current users' > expectations are already set by their past experience with Fedora. If > they're still Fedora users, they're willing to accept - and *have* > accepted - whatever we're currently doing. +1 Amen. Therefore we should b

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-08 Thread Mail Lists
On 03/08/2010 04:32 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: I'd like to add a thought to this that has not been mentioned yet best I can see. First let me state that I use Fedora every day for business - real world business and I'm not using it as an IT or computer person but as a businessman. I am, in m

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-08 Thread Peter Boy
> > My basic point here is that the poll, while imperfect, is the best > > indication we have available so far. > > So? From a scientific process perspective, bad data is bad data. And > if all you have is bad data, then you really have no data at all. >From a social science point of view (and

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-08 Thread Chris Jones
>>then i seriously think we are following different lists :/ >>as adam's poll is starting to show the majority of fedora users choose fedora for the fact that it is >>leading the way with the newer software and that it has constant updates. (ie >>freedom,friends,features,first!) this argument that

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-08 Thread Doug Ledford
On 03/08/2010 03:31 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 12:14 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: >> On 03/08/2010 11:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: >>> If you think the poll is wrong - provide some data to disprove it. >> >> I'm sorry, but that's a scientifically specious argument. Invalid d

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-08 Thread Till Maas
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 12:34:03PM -0500, Will Woods wrote: > Adam's poll results are valid *only* for Fedora users who: > > a) Are members of the Fedora forum, > b) Enthusiasts/power-users to the degree that they would notice a new > threads/poll within a day of its posting, and > c) Hold a stro

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-08 Thread Adam Williamson
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 11:04 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > I thought to myself yesterday, 'what this long and fractious thread > about update policy *really* needs is some unscientific and > controversial numbers'. =) So, I ran a forum poll! Everyone loves those, > right? > > Here it is: http://f

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-08 Thread Adam Williamson
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 12:14 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > On 03/08/2010 11:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 10:27 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > >> > >> Le Sam 6 mars 2010 20:04, Adam Williamson a écrit : > >> > >>> The numbers do surprise me, to be honest. As I write this, i

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-08 Thread leigh scott
Last time I looked at the admin logs for Fedoraforum i.e who's voted , there was at least 15 votes from Fedora project members. On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 18:12 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Adam, if you can't realise that the users most likely to haunt a support forum > are the people most like

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-08 Thread Matthew Garrett
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 08:05:12AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > If you think the poll is wrong - provide some data to disprove it. > Counteracting it with yet more assertions built on precisely no evidence > is not convincing. The evidence that it's wrong is that it's a self-selected sample se

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-08 Thread Will Woods
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 13:15 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:04:31 -0800 > Adam Williamson wrote: > > ...snip... > > > What do people make of this? > > I'm no expert on polls/polling, but I suspect that many of the people > who are more interested in a 'stable/less updates' Fe

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-08 Thread Doug Ledford
On 03/08/2010 11:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 10:27 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >> >> Le Sam 6 mars 2010 20:04, Adam Williamson a écrit : >> >>> The numbers do surprise me, to be honest. As I write this, it's 34-8 - >>> that's over 80% - in favour of 'adventurous' updates

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-08 Thread Nicolas Mailhot
Le Lun 8 mars 2010 17:05, Adam Williamson a écrit : > I don't think that's an assertion you have any kind of evidence to > support. It's really quite sad that half the people who've responded to > the poll have done so by attempting to poke holes in it, as it happens > not to line up with what t

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-08 Thread Adam Williamson
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 10:27 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le Sam 6 mars 2010 20:04, Adam Williamson a écrit : > > > The numbers do surprise me, to be honest. As I write this, it's 34-8 - > > that's over 80% - in favour of 'adventurous' updates. > > Advanced users (those most likely to want a

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-08 Thread Nicolas Mailhot
Le Sam 6 mars 2010 20:04, Adam Williamson a écrit : > The numbers do surprise me, to be honest. As I write this, it's 34-8 - > that's over 80% - in favour of 'adventurous' updates. Advanced users (those most likely to want a more stable rawhide to use it as primary system) use irc, mailing list

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-07 Thread Mail Lists
On 03/07/2010 04:41 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > This is my last email on this topic. Please hold me to that. > > -Mike Sorry - missed that - what did you say ? :-) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-07 Thread Mike McGrath
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010, Mail Lists wrote: > On 03/07/2010 03:39 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > Very well, I retract badly worded and insert "not useful". But hey, it's > > generated more email right? > > > > -Mike > > "Newer and less stable" - using your words - is way more leading (and > totall

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-07 Thread Mail Lists
On 03/07/2010 03:39 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > Very well, I retract badly worded and insert "not useful". But hey, it's > generated more email right? > > -Mike "Newer and less stable" - using your words - is way more leading (and totally false) than what Adam did ... polls can certai

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-07 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 01:04:03PM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote: > On Sun, 7 Mar 2010, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 11:06 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > > > It very well might. But this poll is poorly worded and only > > > > That's the first time you've suggested it's poorly

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-07 Thread Mike McGrath
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 00:59 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > On 03/08/2010 12:22 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 11:06 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > > > > > > >> It very well might. But this poll is poorly worded and only > >

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-07 Thread Adam Williamson
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 00:59 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 03/08/2010 12:22 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 11:06 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > > > >> It very well might. But this poll is poorly worded and only > >> > > That's the first time you've suggested it's

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-07 Thread Rahul Sundaram
On 03/08/2010 12:22 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 11:06 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote: > > >> It very well might. But this poll is poorly worded and only >> > That's the first time you've suggested it's poorly worded; in what way, > might I ask? > I thought you were do

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-07 Thread Mike McGrath
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 11:06 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > It very well might. But this poll is poorly worded and only > > That's the first time you've suggested it's poorly worded; in what way, > might I ask? > Adventurous and Conservative are both

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-07 Thread Rahul Sundaram
On 03/08/2010 12:40 AM, Mail Lists wrote: > > First, may I suggest we not confuse version N-1 and assumtion of > stability. That is way too simplistic. Sometimes the best path to > stability is to update. > You are arguing against something that was never suggested and I am not even saying I

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-07 Thread Mail Lists
On 03/07/2010 12:43 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > No but I have been on that list for five years and follow a lot more I've been with it since early redhat days ... First, may I suggest we not confuse version N-1 and assumtion of stability. That is way too simplistic. Sometimes the best path t

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-07 Thread Adam Williamson
On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 11:06 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote: > It very well might. But this poll is poorly worded and only That's the first time you've suggested it's poorly worded; in what way, might I ask? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedorapro

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-07 Thread Mike McGrath
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010, psmith wrote: > On 06/03/10 20:14, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > On 03/07/2010 01:40 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > If that were the case, I'd have expected someone to bring it up in the > comments. No-one has. > > I've never actually heard of anyone running FN-1 because they wan

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-07 Thread Rahul Sundaram
On 03/07/2010 09:32 PM, psmith wrote: > then i seriously think we are following different lists :/ No but I have been on that list for five years and follow a lot more mails than the average reader and there have been recurrent threads about users recommending to stay on one version behind to get

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-07 Thread Adam Williamson
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 11:04 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > No, the voting numbers aren't huge, but it's still some kind of data. I Just an update - we're now up over 100 votes, adventurous still solidly in the lead, though it's now around 70/30 not 80/20. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-07 Thread Adam Williamson
On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 16:02 +, psmith wrote: > what the fedora users i came across are after. tbh i think this whole > identity crisis is blown of of all proportion, you'd think that > something like this would have come with the fedora10 dbus probs or > the 'stabilisation cannot be detected'

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-07 Thread psmith
On 06/03/10 20:14, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 03/07/2010 01:40 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: If that were the case, I'd have expected someone to bring it up in the comments. No-one has. I've never actually heard of anyone running FN-1 because they want a 'more stable' system; this thread was the

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-06 Thread Adam Williamson
On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 03:58 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 03/07/2010 12:34 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > I thought to myself yesterday, 'what this long and fractious thread > > about update policy *really* needs is some unscientific and > > controversial numbers'. =) So, I ran a forum poll! Ev

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-06 Thread Doug Ledford
On 03/06/2010 03:15 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:04:31 -0800 > Adam Williamson wrote: > > ...snip... > >> What do people make of this? > > I'm no expert on polls/polling, but I suspect that many of the people > who are more interested in a 'stable/less updates' Fedora don't >

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-06 Thread Rahul Sundaram
On 03/07/2010 12:34 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > I thought to myself yesterday, 'what this long and fractious thread > about update policy *really* needs is some unscientific and > controversial numbers'. =) So, I ran a forum poll! Everyone loves those, > right? > > Here it is: http://forums.fedora

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-06 Thread Thomas Janssen
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, Adam Williamson wrote: > >> I thought to myself yesterday, 'what this long and fractious thread >> about update policy *really* needs is some unscientific and >> controversial numbers'. =) So, I ran a forum poll! Everyone l

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-06 Thread Adam Williamson
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 15:00 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote: > I don't think people realize what they're asking for. I'll just defer to > my favorite Ford quote: > > "If I had asked my customers what they wanted," Ford said, "they would > have said a faster horse." I don't think that's quite apt. The

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-06 Thread Dariusz J. Garbowski
On 06/03/10 01:10 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 21:12 +0200, shmuel siegel wrote: >> On 3/6/2010 9:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: >>> I thought to myself yesterday, 'what this long and fractious thread >>> about update policy *really* needs is some unscientific and >>> controver

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-06 Thread Mike McGrath
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, Adam Williamson wrote: > I thought to myself yesterday, 'what this long and fractious thread > about update policy *really* needs is some unscientific and > controversial numbers'. =) So, I ran a forum poll! Everyone loves those, > right? > > Here it is: http://forums.fedorafor

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-06 Thread Thomas Janssen
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > I thought to myself yesterday, 'what this long and fractious thread > about update policy *really* needs is some unscientific and > controversial numbers'. =) So, I ran a forum poll! Everyone loves those, > right? > > Here it is: http://foru

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-06 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:04:31 -0800 Adam Williamson wrote: ...snip... > What do people make of this? I'm no expert on polls/polling, but I suspect that many of the people who are more interested in a 'stable/less updates' Fedora don't frequent things like the forums or users list. Sure, they mig

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-06 Thread Rahul Sundaram
On 03/07/2010 01:40 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > If that were the case, I'd have expected someone to bring it up in the > comments. No-one has. > > I've never actually heard of anyone running FN-1 because they want a > 'more stable' system; this thread was the first time I heard that > theory. In

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-06 Thread Josh Stone
On 03/06/2010 11:04 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > I tried to present the poll in a very neutral way, and as far as I know, > it hasn't been linked to from anywhere else; only regular forum members > are likely to come across it. So it shouldn't be massively inherently > biased, and has a reasonable

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-06 Thread Adam Williamson
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 21:12 +0200, shmuel siegel wrote: > On 3/6/2010 9:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > I thought to myself yesterday, 'what this long and fractious thread > > about update policy *really* needs is some unscientific and > > controversial numbers'. =) So, I ran a forum poll! Everyo

Re: Update question: some user data

2010-03-06 Thread shmuel siegel
On 3/6/2010 9:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > I thought to myself yesterday, 'what this long and fractious thread > about update policy *really* needs is some unscientific and > controversial numbers'. =) So, I ran a forum poll! Everyone loves those, > right? > > > What do people make of this? >