Re: Useless packages (was Re: anarchism_7.7-1.deb)
On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 11:43:50AM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote: > David Starner writes: > > Instead of each developer chose what packages are and aren't useful > > to them, why don't we look at the popularity contest? A simple, bias-free > > way of seperating programs on to the CD's, by actual use. That is what > > it was made for. > > And how difficult would it be to fiddle the results of this??? Not very. So? It shouldn't be hard to detect, and it's not a big deal for the most part. As for the other guy, talking about world domination - that's what you have to do to get world domination. If it ever gets near that point, then Debian will have to consider whether that's what the developers want to be working on. As for a realistic, near term (next 3 years) event it's rather implausable. David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Useless packages (was Re: anarchism_7.7-1.deb)
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Matthew Vernon wrote: > David Starner writes: > > On Fri, Sep 24, 1999 at 05:59:27PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > > > Nevertheless it is moot point because we are running out of room and > there > > > has to be a third CD. It might as well contain all the documents and > > > other packages non-essential to using an OS. > > > > > > Here's another idea. What about putting all the non-essential compilers, > > > includes and other development tools on the extra CD too. They take up a > > > lot of room and does the average Debian user really need an eiffel > > > compiler or the IMAP development kit? > > > > Instead of each developer chose what packages are and aren't useful > > to them, why don't we look at the popularity contest? A simple, bias-free > > way of seperating programs on to the CD's, by actual use. That is what > > it was made for. > > And how difficult would it be to fiddle the results of this??? Oh, and of course, when the ratio developers/programmers vs non-programmers turns into what it is for other OS's (that is, when Debian reaches world-domination), the main-CD would only contain X-related stuff + games... Non really the ideal distribution, eh?! /David Weinehall _ _ // David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /> Northern lights wander \\ // Project MCA Linux hacker// Dance across the winter sky // \> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/
Useless packages (was Re: anarchism_7.7-1.deb)
David Starner writes: > On Fri, Sep 24, 1999 at 05:59:27PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > > Nevertheless it is moot point because we are running out of room and there > > has to be a third CD. It might as well contain all the documents and > > other packages non-essential to using an OS. > > > > Here's another idea. What about putting all the non-essential compilers, > > includes and other development tools on the extra CD too. They take up a > > lot of room and does the average Debian user really need an eiffel > > compiler or the IMAP development kit? > > Instead of each developer chose what packages are and aren't useful > to them, why don't we look at the popularity contest? A simple, bias-free > way of seperating programs on to the CD's, by actual use. That is what > it was made for. And how difficult would it be to fiddle the results of this??? Matthew -- "At least you know where you are with Microsoft." "True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle." http://www.debian.org/
Re: Useless packages (was Re: anarchism_7.7-1.deb)
On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 08:18:04PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 02:51:36AM -0500, David Starner wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 07:28:57AM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > > > David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Instead of each developer chose what packages are and aren't useful > > > > to them, why don't we look at the popularity contest? A simple, > > > > bias-free > > > > way of seperating programs on to the CD's, by actual use. That is what > > > > it was made for. > > > > > > http://www.debian.org/~apenwarr/popcon/ says > > > > > > *** THIS IS EXPERIMENTAL!! *** Try not to get upset if the > > > results are incorrect, but be sure to e-mail me if you think > > > there's something funny going on. > > > > > > I wouldn't base decisions on it yet. > > i wouldn't base any decisions on it ever. that's not it's purpose. IIRC, it was designed in part to simplify the decision of what packages to put on which CD. > > > > > Is there any reason to think it's not correct? > > more to the point, is there any reason to think that it matters whether > it is correct or not? the popularity contest is for informational > (entertainment) purposes only, not for decision making. > > the usefulness of a package has nothing at all to do with it's > popularity - it may be "unpopular" because it is an obscure and > specialised tool but to those who know and need it, it is essential. Okay, if you need the complete suite of geda tools, you're probably going to need the full set of Debian CD's. That's life. Almost every program is going to be essential to someone, and putting all the games on the last CD is not going to go over well. > the survey was never intended to be a means of deciding whether packages > are useful or not. nor was it intended for deciding whether to include a > package in debian or not. I wasn't claiming anything of the sort. > at most, it is a tool for *helping* to order > packages on a CD It's a nice way to order the packages with little to no arbitary decisions, and it's much harder to argue your favorite program was left off arbitrarily. You could set up goals for the CD instead (all Emacsen and a complete Gnome setup on the first CD, for instance), but think about the amount of arguing _those_ goals could cause. > (and even that is of limited use because it mostly > shows the popularity of old packages in the last release but not new > ones in the current unstable). Over half the people who report are running Potato (libstdc++2.9-glibc2.1 is installed by 355 people, while textutils (the top of base) is installed by 612). Still, many of the people who install by CD are running Slink, and would appreciate having the upgraded versions of their current programs on the CD. Does any one have a script to produce a CD listing from the popularity contest? That might produce interesting fuel for the discussion. David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Useless packages (was Re: anarchism_7.7-1.deb)
On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 02:51:36AM -0500, David Starner wrote: > On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 07:28:57AM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > > David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Instead of each developer chose what packages are and aren't useful > > > to them, why don't we look at the popularity contest? A simple, bias-free > > > way of seperating programs on to the CD's, by actual use. That is what > > > it was made for. > > > > http://www.debian.org/~apenwarr/popcon/ says > > > > *** THIS IS EXPERIMENTAL!! *** Try not to get upset if the > > results are incorrect, but be sure to e-mail me if you think > > there's something funny going on. > > > > I wouldn't base decisions on it yet. i wouldn't base any decisions on it ever. that's not it's purpose. > > Is there any reason to think it's not correct? more to the point, is there any reason to think that it matters whether it is correct or not? the popularity contest is for informational (entertainment) purposes only, not for decision making. the usefulness of a package has nothing at all to do with it's popularity - it may be "unpopular" because it is an obscure and specialised tool but to those who know and need it, it is essential. the survey was never intended to be a means of deciding whether packages are useful or not. nor was it intended for deciding whether to include a package in debian or not. at most, it is a tool for *helping* to order packages on a CD (and even that is of limited use because it mostly shows the popularity of old packages in the last release but not new ones in the current unstable). craig -- craig sanders
Re: Useless packages (was Re: anarchism_7.7-1.deb)
Excerpts from debian: 25-Sep-99 Re: Useless packages (was R.. by David [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Is there any reason to think it's not correct? More importantly, even > if it is somewhat wrong, is there any reason to think it's not better > than what we have? Well, accurate for the data it gets doesn't neccessarily mean accurate for all debian users, and there's probably reason to believe that systems that installed popularity-contest or send out the emails would differ systematically in some ways from systems that didn't (For one, the computer would have to be on and on a network when the emails are sent, so most respondants are probably on and on a network continuosly..) In any case, it's probably a good thing to use, as long as its not taken too seriously..
Re: Useless packages (was Re: anarchism_7.7-1.deb)
On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 07:28:57AM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Instead of each developer chose what packages are and aren't useful > > to them, why don't we look at the popularity contest? A simple, bias-free > > way of seperating programs on to the CD's, by actual use. That is what > > it was made for. > > http://www.debian.org/~apenwarr/popcon/ says > > *** THIS IS EXPERIMENTAL!! *** Try not to get upset if the > results are incorrect, but be sure to e-mail me if you think > there's something funny going on. > > I wouldn't base decisions on it yet. Is there any reason to think it's not correct? More importantly, even if it is somewhat wrong, is there any reason to think it's not better than what we have? Assuming it works, popcon takes into account dependencies (because if a depends on b, then at least as many people have b installed as have a installed.) If there are any standard packages that popcon wouldn't put on the first CD, I would question whether they really should be standard. The biggest problem with popcon is that it gives more weight to a program in Slink than to a program new with Potato (assuming there are a significant amount of people running popcon on straight Slink systems.) David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Useless packages (was Re: anarchism_7.7-1.deb)
On Fri, Sep 24, 1999 at 05:59:27PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > Nevertheless it is moot point because we are running out of room and there > has to be a third CD. It might as well contain all the documents and > other packages non-essential to using an OS. > > Here's another idea. What about putting all the non-essential compilers, > includes and other development tools on the extra CD too. They take up a > lot of room and does the average Debian user really need an eiffel > compiler or the IMAP development kit? Instead of each developer chose what packages are and aren't useful to them, why don't we look at the popularity contest? A simple, bias-free way of seperating programs on to the CD's, by actual use. That is what it was made for. David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
