| 1 |
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 14:38:54 +0200 |
| 2 |
Thomas Deutschmann <whissi@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Let's assume we will get reports that app-misc/foo is only installed 20 |
| 5 |
> times. If you are going to judge based on this data, "Obviously, nobody |
| 6 |
> is using that package, it's stuck on <whatever>... safe to remove" your |
| 7 |
> view is biased: |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I see this as more like what bloom filters get you, but in reverse: |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
- You still have to factor for "what you don't know" |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
- But now, instead of having "we don't know if anybody uses this", you |
| 14 |
*can* have a "we know for sure somebody uses this". |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The anonymization and uncorrelatable aspects are of course very useful |
| 17 |
to encourage people who would otherwise be averse to participate to |
| 18 |
participate, but its for sure not a sure thing. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
It would certainly be an improvement over what currently happens "No |
| 21 |
reverse dependencies, thus, nobody is using it". |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Bad things will still happen, but the absence of this tool won't stop |
| 24 |
the bad things happening, because presently, the existence of users is |
| 25 |
entirely conjecture. |
Archives