On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 10:03:47PM +0200, Jan Claeys wrote:
> Bryce Harrington schreef op di 17-05-2011 om 10:16 [-0700]:
> > Would you be open to including one more uuid return, following the
> > first login attempt? I know it probably doesn't matter for a ubiquity
> > perspective, but there are
Excerpts from Martin Pool's message of Tue May 17 09:17:13 -0700 2011:
> It seems like a great thing to try to measure.
>
> 1- I wonder if it would be possible to have just one single checkbox
> "contribute anonymous non-personal technical information to help
> improve Ubuntu" that covers both the
Bryce Harrington schreef op di 17-05-2011 om 10:16 [-0700]:
> Would you be open to including one more uuid return, following the
> first login attempt? I know it probably doesn't matter for a ubiquity
> perspective, but there are several classes of issues that result in a
> bootable but unusable s
Without commenting on the privacy / merit of the proposal etc...
I don't think you need a guid.
Just two counters:
- started an install
- first login after an install where this machine successfully
register the 'started an install' counter.
divide the two and you have (with some noise) the su
On Tuesday, May 17, 2011 06:39:24 PM Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Scott,
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 09:31:59AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > You knew you'd get this response eventually ...
> :
> :-)
> :
> > While I believe you are trying to solve an important problem, I don't
> > think this is
Hi Scott,
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 09:31:59AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> You knew you'd get this response eventually ...
:-)
> While I believe you are trying to solve an important problem, I don't think
> this is the right way to go about it. I do not think a design the phones
> home
> b
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:44:26AM +0100, Evan Dandrea wrote:
> I am therefore proposing that we actually measure this. In Oneiric, I would
> like to add code to ubiquity that, once connected to the Internet, sends a
> GUID as generated by uuidgen. At the end of installation it would send this
>
On Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:37:04 AM Evan Dandrea wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> > You knew you'd get this response eventually ...
>
> But of course :)
>
> > While I believe you are trying to solve an important problem, I don't
> > think this is the right way
It seems like a great thing to try to measure.
1- I wonder if it would be possible to have just one single checkbox
"contribute anonymous non-personal technical information to help
improve Ubuntu" that covers both the installer and the later use of
other programs. If there's only one box for all
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 09:31:59AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> While I believe you are trying to solve an important problem, I don't think
>> this is the right way to go about it. I do not think a design the phones
>> home
>> by defaul
On Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:43:25 AM Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 09:31:59AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > While I believe you are trying to solve an important problem, I don't
> > think this is the right way to go about it. I do not think a design the
> > phones home by defau
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 09:31:59AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> While I believe you are trying to solve an important problem, I don't think
> this is the right way to go about it. I do not think a design the phones
> home
> by default is appropriate for Ubuntu. I don't think that opt-out vi
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Jussi Schultink wrote:
> The information gathered could also give us an idea of how many
> installations we are doing as well, which is useful. Do you plan to
> implement this only for ubiquity or for the alternate install as well?
I don't want to present the dat
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> You knew you'd get this response eventually ...
But of course :)
> While I believe you are trying to solve an important problem, I don't think
> this is the right way to go about it. I do not think a design the phones home
> by default i
On Tuesday, May 17, 2011 06:44:26 AM Evan Dandrea wrote:
> While we have a set of unit tests and a continuous integration system doing
> system testing of the installer, we ultimately have no idea what the
> failure rate is in the real world.
>
> Without this information, we have no means of actua
On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 11:44 +0100, Evan Dandrea wrote:
> While we have a set of unit tests and a continuous integration system doing
> system testing of the installer, we ultimately have no idea what the failure
> rate is in the real world.
>
> Without this information, we have no means of actuall
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Neil Jagdish Patel
wrote:
> I'm not versed on the installer, but would this mean that at the boot
> screen (where you can select keyboard layout etc in text mode), you
> could just have an option to disable this?
Effectively, yes. The boot screen has a place to
Hi,
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Evan Dandrea wrote:
> While we have a set of unit tests and a continuous integration system doing
> system testing of the installer, we ultimately have no idea what the failure
> rate is in the real world.
>
> Without this information, we have no means of actu
W dniu 17.05.2011 12:44, Evan Dandrea pisze:
While we have a set of unit tests and a continuous integration system doing
system testing of the installer, we ultimately have no idea what the failure
rate is in the real world.
Without this information, we have no means of actually measuring the tr
Hey,
On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 11:44 +0100, Evan Dandrea wrote:
> While we have a set of unit tests and a continuous integration system doing
> system testing of the installer, we ultimately have no idea what the failure
> rate is in the real world.
>
> Without this information, we have no means of a
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Evan Dandrea wrote:
> While we have a set of unit tests and a continuous integration system doing
> system testing of the installer, we ultimately have no idea what the failure
> rate is in the real world.
>
> Without this information, we have no means of actually
While we have a set of unit tests and a continuous integration system doing
system testing of the installer, we ultimately have no idea what the failure
rate is in the real world.
Without this information, we have no means of actually measuring the true
quality of the installation experience. It
22 matches
Mail list logo