Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The version numbers from popcon are much more interesting, but also > heavily skewed by eg, d-i defaulting to installing popcon in etch but > not in (released versions of) sarge.
Please also be aware that many of us who run stable on hundreds of production systems don't participate in popcon on our production systems due to security concerns. Yes, I know that the amount of data that it exposes is small, but there's also near-zero benefit from the perspective of the reporting organization, and it's extremely difficult to make the case of sending a complete list of installed packages for each machine to a central repository. Security people immediately start worrying about that data being used to discover vulnerable systems. All the systems on which I run popcon are running testing or unstable because I only run popcon on my personal workstation and development systems. We have hundreds of production servers running Debian stable that are not reflected in those numbers. > I do think that we probably have as many if not more users using > testing+unstable than stable, but at this point that can only be a gut > feeling, there aren't really good numbers to back it up. Certainly I have easily a hundred times as many systems running stable as I do running testing/unstable. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
