On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Matthew Miller <mat...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 03:50:34PM -0400, Jeff Backus wrote: > > Thanks for the data. 25k is still a pretty healthy number. :) I realize > > Yeah, absolutely. And it's likely that those mirror numbers undercount, > because not every system checks in daily, and then there's also NAT. > > But, my gut feeling is that about half of those are not using a current > release _anyway_. Honest question: do you think that 12k would still > count as a healthy number? I mean, it's not peanuts. But maybe it'd be > better served by a Fedora remix (or similar) specifically targetting > older and low-powered systems? > Good question. I think it would be more productive to think in percentages instead of raw numbers, in this case. There are a lot of FOSS projects out there that would love to have 12k users. :) Certainly, I would consider 10% a healthy number when talking about portion of user base. I would even argue that 1% is still a healthy number, particularly with regard to decisions that have a reasonable chance of disenfranchising those affected. While I hate seeing people leave a community, I wouldn't be able to defend 0.1%. So, somewhere in there is my general boundary. Now cost changes all of that, of course. Obviously if 75% of our effort is going to please 10%, then 10% isn't a healthy number. Clearly effort is going into enabling Fedora to work on non-SSE2 systems by teams invested in the success of Fedora in general and not the success of non-SSE2 systems in particular. I just don't know how to quantify it. Based on Smooge's awesome numbers, it looks like x86_32 is in the 2.3% range. It would be interesting to see how this stacks up to AArch64 and other secondary arches. Unfortunately, what complicates things is how x86_32 is so intertwined with x86_64. To your point re: a remix, that is an option we've discussed within the SIG and is one we are open to exploring. A remix wouldn't resolve issues introduced by enabling SSE2 by default, unless we maintained a parallel set of packages e.g. i586 (which I've already been warned about. :) ) > > that there are a lot of unknowns in the data, so it is difficult to draw > > any hard conclusions, but 25k is still much larger than 0. Splitting into > > i686 into i586 and i686 would give more insight into who still needs > > non-SSE2... Probably hurts my argument, though. :) > > Soooooo.... this is the kind of thing that more a detailed hardware > census could really help us with! > Yes, I would agree :) -- Jeff Backus jeff.bac...@gmail.com http://github.com/jsbackus
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/RREBM5JKGKSSO5MDLVKXTHNZSWNTMDZP/
