On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 09:33:51PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > I wonder if it is worth introducing an entirely new tracking concept > here if you actually don't want to track but just count. The NTP > approach has the benefit that you introduce no new tracking concept at > all, but you just use the data that is pretty much generated > anyway. It also makes this all feel less one-sided, after all you > provide them with a deal: fedora gives the user correct time, the user > is therefore counted.
Well, I guess one way of looking at it is that this is part of Fedora's bug and security update service. > I guess the question is if hosting an NTP server is more or less work > than hosting a uuid counting server, and whether the privacy issues > the uuid solution brings are worth it. The infrastructure team assures me that it would be considerably more work. > BTW, iirc intel used to count installations through the http ping > check in their captive portal detection. Fedora runs a similar service > which is used by NM, no? maybe that's a nicer solution too: add a http > header field to the ping check that each client sets to "1" on one of > these ping checks a day, and "0" all other times. Then you count how We have this too and it's useful for some subset of desktop installs, but doesn't tell us about server, cloud, or container usage. -- Matthew Miller <mat...@fedoraproject.org> Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ 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
