Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011
On 03:18 Fri 26 Aug , Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: I've picked this message as I want to address one point in this thread that was focused on this sub-thread. I disagree with the idea that adding an application to the Gentoo tree that collects data from users and sends it to a central (or distributed) system is the same as adding any other application to the tree. Having the ability to add ebuilds to the tree is part of what you gain by getting gentoo-x86 access. Issues with significant users privacy concerns and substantial changes like adding packages to the tree that collect data from users and compile it, Like, oh, any package with a built-in bug reporting system? -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Council Member / Sr. Developer Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.com pgplaqzIBXO04.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 29-08-2011 21:23, Donnie Berkholz wrote: On 03:18 Fri 26 Aug , Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: I've picked this message as I want to address one point in this thread that was focused on this sub-thread. I disagree with the idea that adding an application to the Gentoo tree that collects data from users and sends it to a central (or distributed) system is the same as adding any other application to the tree. Having the ability to add ebuilds to the tree is part of what you gain by getting gentoo-x86 access. Issues with significant users privacy concerns and substantial changes like adding packages to the tree that collect data from users and compile it, Like, oh, any package with a built-in bug reporting system? How many of those are part of the system set or get installed automatically on one's system without any intervention? Furthermore, how many of them are or will be programmed to send data automatically, without prior action of the user and possibly without trace? The point I was addressing is the suggestion that the above should be possible and the idea that any single developer is entitled to do so. - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOXEKXAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEP1ggP+gLBY9IiNjOaIxdQoJ1B/i2f KEmvyTddr4Grxjo8ZME7mefIHi/8ethrWKBuCgf//XshpCQ2r+xKtEgluQf4fX+w MAk9OePybbJJvIeATuoxb/nVYaihMZ7uuOtH5dqbDzhWMMsV0xkmTqgztrQM2v4X jE4yT2hPYV4Ir9OUljzJ5LTBkcdgwDKIjxSn/lUjvCWhNGKr081h6437fOuIQDYE kf+/nDU/UDngk7yKTH4Bgbd7pBNUe8Fu8HJ+7y8iwG0Y4mPW8VCFRHsBFTVNf2/p haX68uC/jPAsWEPO3/YO5rs8JDHNXqL+8zXRPjZn/E0cUkT13+Fa79vKXI6wTPK4 fwF+WZdmAmP/zW5Gs7w82wbML0S0KhQzfVmLu+ne3NBxGhrtnpEzFq6BQgzCtlNu p8vQjtCEVSpeHkTMt0St9/3qPMXhVc1DCRllD2OrEbFil1keHLutDHzIFLVxUZuE 9Fv+esWuTI7yzJjErbvT2OGzbpZMvPuho90QthIbSap/fIf6vK/DOgN+2FcJy0/7 PDtIq8fRL2NF/CQOxjwfGwkpyUK3ZWk7QCBh65MA4PiZHG1eZf5enlvg+WuqYHcC e14tvNVl0FeiW3lwCNy3/IOugSPpIatrbtHCImu0eaJ6oZqLP+OX6HZjpixJg2TP JEnebRBgj6z6VdT774gg =vmrl -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto jmbsvice...@gentoo.org wrote: The point I was addressing is the suggestion that the above should be possible and the idea that any single developer is entitled to do so. It's a moot point, because no one (that I see) claimed or is claiming to be entitled to that. In fact, Alec said We did post to -dev, hence this thread. The point is that we don't need any 'official opinion' to do anything; and I don't want to set that precedent. If you have specific concerns about actions we plan to take (which by the way, we are not planning an opt-out solution. If we plan to do an opt-out solution, we will again have a thread on -dev) then let us know He's not saying that no official opinion would be needed if they were doing an opt-out. He's saying that they don't need an official opinion *since* they aren't doing some sort of opt-out system. Not your fault, but this whole thread regarding the merits/legality/privacy of opt-out is completely irrelevant to the original topic. Matt
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: I've picked this message as I want to address one point in this thread that was focused on this sub-thread. I disagree with the idea that adding an application to the Gentoo tree that collects data from users and sends it to a central (or distributed) system is the same as adding any other application to the tree. Having the ability to add ebuilds to the tree is part of what you gain by getting gentoo-x86 access. Issues with significant users privacy concerns and substantial changes like adding packages to the tree that collect data from users and compile it, should not be at the discretion of individual developers but be subject of global policies that should take into account the legal ramifications (trustees) and reflect the developers desire and goals (council). - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng Just picking a message to reply to at random here. Sorry Jorge, I thought common sense would kick in way before now. As a user, if ANY distro starts collecting data about me without my consent, I would be looking for something else to use. For people to even think that users want someone snooping on them is rather presumptuous. I have to also agree with the legal problems as well. Doing this without the users consent is going to lead to a huge legal mess. It would also taint Gentoo and Linux in general if this were to happen. Anyone who thinks it won't needs to talk to a lawyer and some common folks really soon. As a user, if this was done without my consent, saying I would be pissed would be to mild a term but one I am willing to use on a public forum. As a example, I have DirecTv. It has no connection other than the satellite cable. No telephone or anything. I don't want them snooping on what I watch on TV either. I also don't care to have Gentoo collecting data on what I use or other data either. If I wanted that, I could just use M$ stuff. I would expect such things from them and the huge EULA they have. Back to my hole. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:03:44 +0200 Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote: Am Mittwoch 24 August 2011, 12:48:35 schrieb Patrick Lauer: If you sneakily add something to cron.daily by default you can get pretty nice coverage. But I guess anyone trying that in Gentooland will meet some rather unpleasant resistance :) Of course, we could place it in some blatantly obvious way into a default configuration, together with a big fat message what it does and how to quickly disable it. We'd get better coverage in an opt-out system than in an opt-in system. And a larger number of angry users which missed the warning and now have to pay for additional GPRS transfer or so. And when people use GPRS rarely, they usually don't think about random apps that use the connection in background. (First idea- package is pulled in by a default-on useflag and installs itself into cron.daily. BEFORE it runs the first time it outputs said message and asks for permission to proceed (which cannot be done in the cron job obviously but we'd find a way).) And what if it can't ask for that? Assuming you're talking about 'opt-out', I guess the fallback would be to 'yes'. We don't want to end up like Windows, where you get AFK for five minutes and then discover the system has rebooted. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011
On 2011.08.24 11:48, Patrick Lauer wrote: [snip] If you sneakily add something to cron.daily by default you can get pretty nice coverage. But I guess anyone trying that in Gentooland will meet some rather unpleasant resistance :) This app and if its opt in or opt out will set a precedence for any future apps that want automatic user feedback in Gentoo It has to be opt-in as opt out would be a dangerous precendent to set. I don't see any harm is a gentle reminder message from emerge, provided that the reminder can be turned off too, if the user really does not want to opt in. Thats no worse than being nagged about unread news. -- Regards, Roy Bamford (Neddyseagoon) a member of elections gentoo-ops forum-mods trustees pgpz8BkPEPndt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Roy Bamford neddyseag...@gentoo.org wrote: It has to be opt-in as opt out would be a dangerous precendent to set. I don't see any harm is a gentle reminder message from emerge, provided that the reminder can be turned off too, if the user really does not want to opt in. Thats no worse than being nagged about unread news. I tend to agree, the more I think about it. The simplest solution (which doesn't require any portage mods/etc), is to simply make this a package that installs the appropriate logic in cron.daily, and we send out a news item encouraging users to install it voluntarily. If the user does nothing, they don't get the package. If somebody can come up with really good reason that we should be more aggressive in promoting it, then we can promote it more aggressively. That /might/ go as far as a forced opt-in/out decision. However, the more I think about it the more I'm concerned with pure opt-out by default. The big issue with opt-out is privacy law - especially in Europe (that's leaving aside just being up-front with users). We'd end up having to have EULAs or such and perhaps a number of other legal controls, and I don't think that is a direction that we want to go in. I'm just not seeing the upside - better to just figure out good ways to use data that is easy and safe to obtain first. Earlier somebody suggested that this decision wasn't really in the domain of the Council/Trustees. I'm not sure I agree here - any kind of opt-out data collection is something that has potential legal ramifications as well as huge reputation concerns for the distro (the software is distributed from Foundation-owned hardware utilizing a Foundation-owned domain name and the data goes back to Foundation-owned hardware - I'm sure any lawyer could make a case for this). Just because there isn't a policy written down somewhere doesn't mean that we can't use common sense. Devs certainly don't need to run everything past the Council, but if you want to do something high-profile post it on -dev, and if there is an uproar look for an official second opinion before doing it. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 5:20 AM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Roy Bamford neddyseag...@gentoo.org wrote: It has to be opt-in as opt out would be a dangerous precendent to set. I don't see any harm is a gentle reminder message from emerge, provided that the reminder can be turned off too, if the user really does not want to opt in. Thats no worse than being nagged about unread news. I tend to agree, the more I think about it. The simplest solution (which doesn't require any portage mods/etc), is to simply make this a package that installs the appropriate logic in cron.daily, and we send out a news item encouraging users to install it voluntarily. If the user does nothing, they don't get the package. If somebody can come up with really good reason that we should be more aggressive in promoting it, then we can promote it more aggressively. That /might/ go as far as a forced opt-in/out decision. However, the more I think about it the more I'm concerned with pure opt-out by default. Why is the thread bikeshedding an out-opt that we aren't even considering doing right now? The big issue with opt-out is privacy law - especially in Europe (that's leaving aside just being up-front with users). We'd end up having to have EULAs or such and perhaps a number of other legal controls, and I don't think that is a direction that we want to go in. I'm just not seeing the upside - better to just figure out good ways to use data that is easy and safe to obtain first. Earlier somebody suggested that this decision wasn't really in the domain of the Council/Trustees. I'm not sure I agree here - any kind of opt-out data collection is something that has potential legal ramifications as well as huge reputation concerns for the distro (the software is distributed from Foundation-owned hardware utilizing a Foundation-owned domain name and the data goes back to Foundation-owned hardware - I'm sure any lawyer could make a case for this). Just because there isn't a policy written down somewhere doesn't mean that we can't use common sense. Devs certainly don't need to run everything past the Council, but if you want to do something high-profile post it on -dev, and if there is an uproar look for an official second opinion before doing it. We did post to -dev, hence this thread. The point is that we don't need any 'official opinion' to do anything; and I don't want to set that precedent. If you have specific concerns about actions we plan to take (which by the way, we are not planning an opt-out solution. If we plan to do an opt-out solution, we will again have a thread on -dev) then let us know. If you have specific legal concerns about the application, data retention, encryption, logs, backups, onerous european privacy laws, and other such questions you should raise those concerns now. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote: We did post to -dev, hence this thread. My post was intended to be general in applicability, and not critical of the particular instance of this issue being discussed. I would generally suggest that implementing this as a package and not as a function built-into portage would tend to make more sense to me (do we really want portage to do EVERYTHING?). However, I don't think that anybody needs anybody's blessing in particular to take one course or the other there. And, in the Gentoo tradition of everybody-does-whatever-they-want-to, there is nothing wrong with one set of devs doing it one way and another set doing it another way so that we end up with two data repositories with somewhat redundant data so that we can start another discussion on -dev about what the differences in the datasets mean. That is, until eventually devs get bored and after enough bugs pile up one or both of the collection mechanisms gets treecleaned. Then in five years somebody can build a new one. :) If I had strong concerns with anything that seemed likely to get adopted I'd voice them. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 25-08-2011 14:35, Alec Warner wrote: On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 5:20 AM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: snip The big issue with opt-out is privacy law - especially in Europe (that's leaving aside just being up-front with users). We'd end up having to have EULAs or such and perhaps a number of other legal controls, and I don't think that is a direction that we want to go in. I'm just not seeing the upside - better to just figure out good ways to use data that is easy and safe to obtain first. Earlier somebody suggested that this decision wasn't really in the domain of the Council/Trustees. I'm not sure I agree here - any kind of opt-out data collection is something that has potential legal ramifications as well as huge reputation concerns for the distro (the software is distributed from Foundation-owned hardware utilizing a Foundation-owned domain name and the data goes back to Foundation-owned hardware - I'm sure any lawyer could make a case for this). Just because there isn't a policy written down somewhere doesn't mean that we can't use common sense. Devs certainly don't need to run everything past the Council, but if you want to do something high-profile post it on -dev, and if there is an uproar look for an official second opinion before doing it. We did post to -dev, hence this thread. The point is that we don't need any 'official opinion' to do anything; and I don't want to set that precedent. If you have specific concerns about actions we plan to take (which by the way, we are not planning an opt-out solution. If we plan to do an opt-out solution, we will again have a thread on -dev) then let us know. If you have specific legal concerns about the application, data retention, encryption, logs, backups, onerous european privacy laws, and other such questions you should raise those concerns now. I've picked this message as I want to address one point in this thread that was focused on this sub-thread. I disagree with the idea that adding an application to the Gentoo tree that collects data from users and sends it to a central (or distributed) system is the same as adding any other application to the tree. Having the ability to add ebuilds to the tree is part of what you gain by getting gentoo-x86 access. Issues with significant users privacy concerns and substantial changes like adding packages to the tree that collect data from users and compile it, should not be at the discretion of individual developers but be subject of global policies that should take into account the legal ramifications (trustees) and reflect the developers desire and goals (council). - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOVxCXAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEP7KAQAJBwDHp4aS+5l8gahHUrsWYI 0gUpO+qtsFODsKToQa4ZZ9jTZhFvN0iscyApXvgO8FBOnPzFCMiq+LblI/j/cnFK OwVYJ4/tvcc1C1fE1lQecd1kNVlnVLCEvR8NbeKA184ty4kS7cJy2FqAiWbzGGno /zNsQI+iDUg6ZCamCz29EZ5FJgfUzXzG+Ipbh61T0c/Ukugq5xHA8c5zTzoRre2u /fSRMM9qPakmgaHJoV8t+8B0ejJccW/+MquKIyFdDnUDvQH5U/RnXl3D5oe7+0vb Eak3VB5iUrkZifqhpOQMEeAtuNColigPy4oPr6BsQz7t0uiC2M0MHei4cigbN8kn yp4U+RZE4PhJ/+b/U/jnaiidGu8IF+Kdl3DPgCR130N4vbpO8u7KjyphdoL7QZx5 hnc3A5ZxQxraQolKtFnl8Be8P5NvuKdiP192wYmACuCw3W95XVNDtUhc63n++fqo 0K9WTEudO+JZN7JYZFSU6OJo5hvujHcQvvIO2sG30Q56x7EfvCRFCzMUsRC8mU0L uSKW+YFHVp1+yCJ9BbnTWp9afPUVQ56/1YtCxLDsqEi0lI7otm0TpuJFIC/fDJ1F Hf9Kqaap9kZzc1WBKuMY0Rvvf8CKf/9bd9QTxT5Fz/tpiNGkU9MTMFPHghDFUP8h 773YR/NFapQVLHyqemla =G4Y6 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011
Hi, On 18:16 Tue 23 Aug 2011, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: there is one important aspect of your program that really needs to be documented (and comments in the code are not enough): What data exactly is the client sending to the server?! What you need is basically an easy-to-find file / web page / ... where this is explained concise and in simple words. As long as that does not exist, your program will not find much acceptance. You may look at the files README and FAQ for Ubuntu's popularity contest: http://popcon.ubuntu.com/ If we could get their turnout rates, that'd be great. Apart from that, I like the entire project, and am curious about its results. +1 It has come up several times that getting usage statistics would motivate developers. Cheers, Thomas -- Thomas Kahle http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomka/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011
On 08/24/11 12:31, Thomas Kahle wrote: Hi, On 18:16 Tue 23 Aug 2011, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: there is one important aspect of your program that really needs to be documented (and comments in the code are not enough): What data exactly is the client sending to the server?! What you need is basically an easy-to-find file / web page / ... where this is explained concise and in simple words. As long as that does not exist, your program will not find much acceptance. You may look at the files README and FAQ for Ubuntu's popularity contest: http://popcon.ubuntu.com/ If we could get their turnout rates, that'd be great. If you sneakily add something to cron.daily by default you can get pretty nice coverage. But I guess anyone trying that in Gentooland will meet some rather unpleasant resistance :)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011
Am Mittwoch 24 August 2011, 12:48:35 schrieb Patrick Lauer: If you sneakily add something to cron.daily by default you can get pretty nice coverage. But I guess anyone trying that in Gentooland will meet some rather unpleasant resistance :) Of course, we could place it in some blatantly obvious way into a default configuration, together with a big fat message what it does and how to quickly disable it. We'd get better coverage in an opt-out system than in an opt-in system. (First idea- package is pulled in by a default-on useflag and installs itself into cron.daily. BEFORE it runs the first time it outputs said message and asks for permission to proceed (which cannot be done in the cron job obviously but we'd find a way).) -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer - kde, sci, arm, tex dilfri...@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: If you sneakily add something to cron.daily by default you can get pretty nice coverage. But I guess anyone trying that in Gentooland will meet some rather unpleasant resistance :) Well, we could always broadcast the news widely (lists, forums, eselect news, and so on). I'd also make it controllable via use flag. Put the client and the cron.daily file in a package, and then make that a use-dependency of something everybody has (the profile if profiles support this (don't think they do), and if not pick something that correlates well with people who would benefit from this feature. Users can opt-out via use flag. You can also start out with it being opt-in (use flag off by default in profiles), and then turn it on later (with notice/etc). The key is to not be sneaky about it. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011
On 12:48 Wed 24 Aug 2011, Patrick Lauer wrote: On 08/24/11 12:31, Thomas Kahle wrote: Hi, On 18:16 Tue 23 Aug 2011, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: there is one important aspect of your program that really needs to be documented (and comments in the code are not enough): What data exactly is the client sending to the server?! What you need is basically an easy-to-find file / web page / ... where this is explained concise and in simple words. As long as that does not exist, your program will not find much acceptance. You may look at the files README and FAQ for Ubuntu's popularity contest: http://popcon.ubuntu.com/ If we could get their turnout rates, that'd be great. If you sneakily add something to cron.daily by default you can get pretty nice coverage. But I guess anyone trying that in Gentooland will meet some rather unpleasant resistance :) Oh yeah... when I used Ubuntu last 11/06 it would still ask you on install. @Vikraman: I guess you see how *important* it is to be completely open and explain everything the program does. On Gentoo it should of course be opt-in, instead of opt-out. -- Thomas Kahle http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomka/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011
On 13:03 Wed 24 Aug 2011, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: Am Mittwoch 24 August 2011, 12:48:35 schrieb Patrick Lauer: If you sneakily add something to cron.daily by default you can get pretty nice coverage. But I guess anyone trying that in Gentooland will meet some rather unpleasant resistance :) Of course, we could place it in some blatantly obvious way into a default configuration, together with a big fat message what it does and how to quickly disable it. We'd get better coverage in an opt-out system than in an opt-in system. (First idea- package is pulled in by a default-on useflag and installs itself into cron.daily. BEFORE it runs the first time it outputs said message and asks for permission to proceed (which cannot be done in the cron job obviously but we'd find a way).) Sorry, but NO. If you want you can make a big noise message that asks users to install the cron-job but opt-out is not an option here. -- Thomas Kahle http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomka/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011
i am a user and i am ok with opt-out if the std data that is transferd is compleatly anonymized so no sensitive data. and if the user wants to register his/her machine pkg's more data is trasnfered thx Mario 2011/8/24 Thomas Kahle to...@gentoo.org: On 13:03 Wed 24 Aug 2011, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: Am Mittwoch 24 August 2011, 12:48:35 schrieb Patrick Lauer: If you sneakily add something to cron.daily by default you can get pretty nice coverage. But I guess anyone trying that in Gentooland will meet some rather unpleasant resistance :) Of course, we could place it in some blatantly obvious way into a default configuration, together with a big fat message what it does and how to quickly disable it. We'd get better coverage in an opt-out system than in an opt-in system. (First idea- package is pulled in by a default-on useflag and installs itself into cron.daily. BEFORE it runs the first time it outputs said message and asks for permission to proceed (which cannot be done in the cron job obviously but we'd find a way).) Sorry, but NO. If you want you can make a big noise message that asks users to install the cron-job but opt-out is not an option here. -- Thomas Kahle http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomka/
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Thomas Kahle to...@gentoo.org wrote: Sorry, but NO. If you want you can make a big noise message that asks users to install the cron-job but opt-out is not an option here. Well, that's up to the Council/Trustees ultimately, but opinions (and better still reasoning) are welcome since both would no-doubt want to reflect the will of the community (and whatever is legal in the jurisdictions that matter). One option that many distros employ is a forced opt-in/out decision. During the install process they simply ask the user, and they have to hit either yes or no to continue. The reason most people don't opt-in is that they don't think about it, and this forces the issue. The Gentoo analogue would be to put something in make.conf or whatever that must be set one way or another. Maybe have an opt-in use flag and an opt-out use flag and if you don't set either emerge just dies with a notice or something. No doubt somebody could come up with a more elegant solution. Maybe another line of discussion that could inform the debate is what the value of this information is? For a company, knowing what packages are popular helps them to allocate resources. Gentoo is a volunteer effort and devs allocate their effort based on personal preference, though perhaps some would care about package popularity to an extent. So, we might not benefit to the same degree from this kind of information, since we can't crack the whip and force people to fix some broken package that is popular. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Thomas Kahle to...@gentoo.org wrote: Sorry, but NO. If you want you can make a big noise message that asks users to install the cron-job but opt-out is not an option here. Well, that's up to the Council/Trustees ultimately, but opinions (and better still reasoning) are welcome since both would no-doubt want to reflect the will of the community (and whatever is legal in the jurisdictions that matter). It doesn't take a council vote nor a trustees vote to add a package to everyone's machine. In the end I'd recommend just looking at the opt-in numbers. Is the data useful from opt-in users? If the answer is no, then we can always think up other ways to get more users. Will auto-installs be on the list of ideas? You bet ;) But I think we are putting the cart before the horse. One option that many distros employ is a forced opt-in/out decision. During the install process they simply ask the user, and they have to hit either yes or no to continue. The reason most people don't opt-in is that they don't think about it, and this forces the issue. The Gentoo analogue would be to put something in make.conf or whatever that must be set one way or another. Maybe have an opt-in use flag and an opt-out use flag and if you don't set either emerge just dies with a notice or something. No doubt somebody could come up with a more elegant solution. The stage3 tarball doesn't even come with a dhcp client; so I don't really see how installing a stats client makes sense from the standpoint of 'only what is necessary.' For many people, that is an important part of Gentoo (cf. python3...) Making emerge die unless you make a decision will probably break a bunch of shit (plenty of people have automatic installs in some fashion.) We would have to use an existing methodology to avoid breaking them (PROPERTIES=interactive?) Maybe another line of discussion that could inform the debate is what the value of this information is? For a company, knowing what packages are popular helps them to allocate resources. Gentoo is a volunteer effort and devs allocate their effort based on personal preference, though perhaps some would care about package popularity to an extent. So, we might not benefit to the same degree from this kind of information, since we can't crack the whip and force people to fix some broken package that is popular. I think at present we don't know the informations value; that is part of why considering opt-out is premature ;) Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011
Hi Vikram, there is one important aspect of your program that really needs to be documented (and comments in the code are not enough): What data exactly is the client sending to the server?! What you need is basically an easy-to-find file / web page / ... where this is explained concise and in simple words. As long as that does not exist, your program will not find much acceptance. Apart from that, I like the entire project, and am curious about its results. Best, Andreas Am Montag 22 August 2011, 23:20:30 schrieb Vikraman: Hi all, Gentoostats[0] is a GSoC 2011 project to collect package statistics from gentoo machines. Please check it out. Bug reports and feature suggestions are welcome. To submit your stats, use the app-portage/gentoostats ebuild from betagarden overlay[1]. [0] https://soc.dev.gentoo.org/gentoostats/ [1] https://soc.dev.gentoo.org/gentoostats/about -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer - kde, sci, arm, tex dilfri...@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/
[gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011
Hi all, Gentoostats[0] is a GSoC 2011 project to collect package statistics from gentoo machines. Please check it out. Bug reports and feature suggestions are welcome. To submit your stats, use the app-portage/gentoostats ebuild from betagarden overlay[1]. [0] https://soc.dev.gentoo.org/gentoostats/ [1] https://soc.dev.gentoo.org/gentoostats/about -- Vikraman signature.asc Description: PGP signature
