[gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011

[gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011

[Vikraman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 380 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: PGP signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 230 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011

[Andreas K. Huettel]

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
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011

[Thomas Kahle]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 880 bytes --]

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/

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011

[Patrick Lauer]

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

[Andreas K. Huettel]

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
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@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

[Thomas Kahle]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1278 bytes --]

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/

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011

[Thomas Kahle]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1034 bytes --]

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/

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011

[Mario Fetka]

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 <tomka@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

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Thomas Kahle <tomka@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

[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoostats, SoC 2011

[Duncan]

Rich Freeman posted on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 07:07:54 -0400 as excerpted:

> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@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.

Agreed on the no-sneaky bit.

The practical question is what to make it a USE flag of?  Baselayout/
openrc?  Portage?

Personally, I'd start with a couple paragraphs in the handbook describing 
the package and why one really /does/ want it installed and setup but 
that Gentoo gives the user the option, as part of the installation 
section, presumably thrown in with choosing the cron and syslog daemons, 
etc.

Then I'd do the PR thing as you mention, pointing out that it's in the 
handbook now, so new users will likely be installing it, and to avoid 
skewing the numbers toward the new installations, existing installations 
should consider it as well.  Existing users aren't likely to want the 
focus to shift to packages only the noobs are likely to install, for 
instance.  Setup a bit of a competition there, and I'd guess you're 
likely to get better buy-in from existing users.

I'd leave the USE flag dependency out of it, at least initially.  It 
could always be added later, if thought necessary.  But I suspect that if 
it's presented well in the handbook, many new users will install it, and 
if that fact is pointed out to existing users in appropriate forum/list 
threads, etc, many existing users will as well, just to "keep up", 
statistically.  Yet if it's a separate package that must be separately 
installed, there's no way people can say it wasn't their choice, as they 
might be able to if it's a USE flag they weren't paying attention to, 
particularly if that flag defaults on.  Make it an active choice and 
people are far more likely to continue with it, too, than if they felt in 
any way that it was pushed on them, with little choice.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011

[Alec Warner]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Thomas Kahle <tomka@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

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1404 bytes --]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:03:44 +0200
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoostats, SoC 2011

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 08/24/2011 01:48 PM, Patrick Lauer 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 :)

emerge always asks me after a world update whether I want to "auto clean 
packages" with a yes/no prompt.  I wouldn't be bad if once a month or 
whatever it would ask me whether I want to upload my stats.  Gentoostats 
should probably become a runtime dep of Portage itself by default, but 
not used automatically.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 788 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@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] Re: Gentoostats, SoC 2011

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 25/08/2011 11:42 ??, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 08/24/2011 01:48 PM, Patrick Lauer 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 :)
> 
> emerge always asks me after a world update whether I want to "auto
> clean packages" with a yes/no prompt.  I wouldn't be bad if once a
> month or whatever it would ask me whether I want to upload my
> stats.  Gentoostats should probably become a runtime dep of Portage
> itself by default, but not used automatically.
> 
> 
I like your idea and people seem to like making things complicated.
Simple solution:

opt-in

How:
Display a warning after an emerge -u{DNav} world.
Let user disable this warning by using a special variable in make.conf

STATS_ENABLE="no".

By default, this variable will be "yes" on base/ profiles

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
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=V+cS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoostats, SoC 2011

[Patrick Nagel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

On 2011-08-25 20:43, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 25/08/2011 11:42 ??, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> On 08/24/2011 01:48 PM, Patrick Lauer 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 :)
> 
>> emerge always asks me after a world update whether I want to "auto 
>> clean packages" with a yes/no prompt.  I wouldn't be bad if once a 
>> month or whatever it would ask me whether I want to upload my stats.
>> Gentoostats should probably become a runtime dep of Portage itself by
>> default, but not used automatically.
> 
> I like your idea and people seem to like making things complicated. 
> Simple solution:
> 
> opt-in
> 
> How: Display a warning after an emerge -u{DNav} world. Let user disable
> this warning by using a special variable in make.conf
> 
> STATS_ENABLE="no".
> 
> By default, this variable will be "yes" on base/ profiles

That sounds perfect to me.

The prompt should offer three options:

 [s]end the data directly
 s[h]ow me the data*
 s[k]ip

 You can disable this prompt by having either 'SEND_STATS="yes"' (to always
 send) or 'SEND_STATS="no" (to never send) in your /etc/make.conf.

*) And in the next step, after showing the data set(s): Send? [y/n]

(why do all those words have to start with an 's'??)

Cheers,
Patrick.

- -- 
Key ID: 0x86E346D4            http://patrick-nagel.net/key.asc
Fingerprint: 7745 E1BE FA8B FBAD 76AB 2BFC C981 E686 86E3 46D4
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk5WWPoACgkQyYHmhobjRtSwewCgyJzgsLLvjfZpX5vg8XcxkNMb
tg8AoIkHz1z6b9DxTrnJxe3YyTDMOYsr
=ZKYx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011

[Alec Warner]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 5:20 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@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] Re: Gentoostats, SoC 2011

[Fabian Groffen]

On 25-08-2011 22:15:22 +0800, Patrick Nagel wrote:
> The prompt should offer three options:
> 
>  [s]end the data directly
>  s[h]ow me the data*
>  s[k]ip
> 
>  You can disable this prompt by having either 'SEND_STATS="yes"' (to always
>  send) or 'SEND_STATS="no" (to never send) in your /etc/make.conf.
> 
> *) And in the next step, after showing the data set(s): Send? [y/n]
> 
> (why do all those words have to start with an 's'??)

send
display/view
later

:)

-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@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

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----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 <rich0@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

[Dale]

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

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 842 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----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/
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=vmrl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011

[Matt Turner]

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
<jmbsvicetto@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

[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoostats, SoC 2011

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 23/08/11 00:20, Vikraman wrote:
> 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

Is this project dead now?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoostats, SoC 2011

[Alec Warner]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23/08/11 00:20, Vikraman wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
>
> Is this project dead now?
>
>

A trivial look at the git repo would indicate no it is not dead.

-A

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoostats, SoC 2011

[G. Gaydarov]

On 04/27/2012 06:34 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 23/08/11 00:20, Vikraman wrote:
>> 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
> 
> Is this project dead now?
> 
> 

Hi,

The project is not dead. As part of GSoC 2012 I will be working on
improving gentoostats. I'll post an official announcement here in the
very near future.

If you have any questions and/or ideas about the project please don't
hesitate to get in touch with me.

Regards,
G. Gaydarov