Re: [KDE/Mac] MacPorts usage statistics

2014-12-07 Thread Clemens Lang
Hi, - On 7 Dec, 2014, at 21:45, Marko Käning mk-macpo...@techno.ms wrote: > I didn’t imagine, that already 40% of the (contributing) users are on OSX > 10.10 > and only 30% on 10.9... > > Interesting also, that 10.6 is still THIRD!!! :-) Please note that none of the graphs you see on this

Re: [KDE/Mac] MacPorts usage statistics

2014-12-07 Thread Marko Käning
On 07 Dec 2014, at 22:23 , Brandon Allbery wrote: > On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Marko Käning wrote: > Joshua, how can we advertise mpstats to more users??? > > Message in the installer dmg (maybe even a checkbox to auto-install the > port?) and after selfupdate to a new version? A

Re: [KDE/Mac] MacPorts usage statistics

2014-12-07 Thread Brandon Allbery
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Marko Käning wrote: > Joshua, how can we advertise mpstats to more users??? > Message in the installer dmg (maybe even a checkbox to auto-install the port?) and after selfupdate to a new version? The latter would even be better as a "display notes for base

Re: [KDE/Mac] MacPorts usage statistics

2014-12-07 Thread Marko Käning
On 07 Dec 2014, at 22:07 , Joshua Root wrote: >> Interesting also, that 10.6 is still THIRD!!! :-) > > Note that the sample size is only 50, and that's almost certainly > heavily skewed towards committers. Yes, I am aware of the limited use of the mpstats port. Still, it is interesting that thos

Re: [KDE/Mac] MacPorts usage statistics

2014-12-07 Thread Joshua Root
On 2014-12-8 07:45 , Marko Käning wrote: > Hi René, > > On 07 Dec 2014, at 21:32 , René J.V. Bertin wrote: >> That calls for a bit of lobbying -- or maybe a survey how many MacPorts >> users were aware of the port's existence. >> >> Not me in any case… > > well, the original thread started off

Re: [KDE/Mac] MacPorts usage statistics

2014-12-07 Thread Marko Käning
Hi René, On 07 Dec 2014, at 21:32 , René J.V. Bertin wrote: > That calls for a bit of lobbying -- or maybe a survey how many MacPorts users > were aware of the port's existence. > > Not me in any case… well, the original thread started off wrt Homebrew [1] and was then followed by [2]. And y