thoughts on LWN "how many Fedora users are there"

[Kam Leo]

On 10/17/06, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/17/06, Kam Leo <kam.leo at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/17/06, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 10/17/06, Kam Leo <kam.leo at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 10/14/06, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > > > > Tim wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, 2006-10-13 at 21:32 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > > > > >> If you want to not even let the project collect anonymous hits you just
> > > > > >> have to use a local mirror.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And where would *that* get its files from?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a pedantic argument.  The central mirror list has certain
> > > > > bandwidth requirements to be met before it is included. There are many
> > > > > many mirrors out there which are public but dont meet the bandwidth
> > > > > requirements and hence wont be included or counted as hits in our list.
> > > > > Moreover if you dont use the central mirror list and instead pick one
> > > > > specifically which is not the main mirror, you wont be counted by us.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lets suppose that you did pick from one of the mirrors included in our
> > > > > list, you rsync and hit the mirror once and you can setup a local mirror
> > > > > that distributes to any number of local systems without hitting the main
> > > > > mirrors at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since I havent seen anyone express concerns over us collecting metrics
> > > > > from anonymous hit logs that would be what we would be doing post FC6
> > > > > release.  Maybe on FC7, we can have a opt in mechanism to collect more
> > > > > stats. Having a better idea on how many users we have would be a good
> > > > > thing and what we have been wanting to do for quite sometime.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rahul
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Is Red Hat requesting the number of users information because Fedora
> > > > now uses yum and yum does not require/provide the single point of
> > > > contact up2date provided?
> > > >
> > >
> > > When last did Fedora _not_ use yum?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Fedora Core 5 and proud
> > >
> >
> > If I recall correctly, FC1 used up2date as the default package
> > updater. Could go back as far as FC3.
> >
>
> Didn't up2date use yum as the backend?
>

I believe that was a more recent occurrence.