Source: https://linux-hardware.org/?view=os_display_server
Reporting is done by users who voluntarily upload their system specs via
# hw-probe -all -upload
Source: https://linux-hardware.org/?view=os_display_server
Reporting is done by users who voluntarily upload their system specs via
# hw-probe -all -upload
So not skewed at all…
Do you have a better way of measuring it?
In what direction would voluntary self-reporting of all system specs skew the display server statistic (and why)?
No better way of measuring doesn’t mean this is a good way of measuring.
What way do you imagine would be more precise?
A method that attempts to collect data from a randomized or representative population rather than relying on self-report.
The fact that you need consent to get this data would make a randomized approach impossible.
Yes. It just may be possible that accurate poll data on such things isn’t possible.
Could always go for opt-out instead opt-in metrics. Fedora had some recent controversy with it.
canonical has been doing this for years too, and a significant portion of linux users are on ubuntu. i’m not sure if a good portion of users enable it though.
Unavoidable analytics, apparently. Yay?
I like the way kde does it. On first install it gives a slider with how much analytics you want to send. I just do all of it because I trust KDE, but it’s nice that it asks you. They probably have some pretty good data.
I imagine people who care about this sort of thing are more likely to report it. And people who care about this sort of thing are also more likely to be early adopters and go through the effort of switching to Wayland.
The way to get a more random sample is not something I want (built-in, automatic telemetry by default). So I’m fine with having skewed data for something like this.
Its a pretty good survey and has a good sample size. Statistics is hard. I won’t take the criticism too seriously.
I just did that, why not, but it misreported my DE anyway, so I’d take the OP post with quite a grain of salt.