Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2012 Archives by date, by thread · List index

On 10/31/2012 11:13 AM, Marc Paré wrote:
Le 2012-10-31 09:44, Italo Vignoli a écrit :
Il 31/10/2012 14:19, Florian Monfort ha scritto:

Of course not. Rob Weir is our main enemy, and has always been such (you
can dig a little bit inside his blog). He represents IBM mood, and this
is just a proof that TDF and LibreOffice are more successful than Apache OO.


Well, disregarding the author's name, the article contends that the metrics behind TDF/LibreOffice is not verifiable. So, the question is, can anyone collect LibreOffice data on their own and at any moment? I don't think we are at the point where we can say yes to this. But, we should definitely be working hard on this so that we can all have clarity on the number of downloads and user numbers. Being able to verify numbers by all, and, at any time (whether for our own use or for our competition to see) serves us well in determining the health of our community.
The problem is that numbers have a variety of statistical problems built in no matter the openness of the source. Multiple downloads, multi-boot systems, having both installed and using one primarily, source bias (distro shipping with LO not AOO for example). The problem is well beyond my very limited statistical literacy and judging from Rob Weir's comments my statistical competence is far greater than his.

Rob's problem is that he confuses downloads with usage and implies that anyone who download statistics he can not supposedly verify is lying. He never answers the implicit question of why the TDF would lie about LO downloads or even want to lie about the statistics. My statistical background is from a manufacturing background but I see several lurking problems in anyone's statistics.

Anyone who runs a small website will get various statistics from their host and they statistics can not be verified by someone like Rob. Is the host or website owner a liar when they report the statistics? Almost, always no because they have no reason to lie about their traffic. The TDF is in the same situation, the traffic is what the traffic is and the downloads are what they are. I would more interested in the trends of the both than the absolute numbers because that would be an indication of growth and future project health.

The author also uses the race horse analogy, "people would bet on the fastest horse rather than the slow one" (paraphrased). While this may be true, a new up-and-coming horse may get more support than a fast horse that is obviously in decline.

IMO, we should not respond to his article and just let it die a slow death, we should not give him the "soap box" that he is looking for. Anyone with common sense can read the writing on the wall. Let's keep on our track and not worry about such articles. It still doesn't stop us from reading them and taking out what may be of value to us.
Agreed, read them, discuss what we can learn from them and move on. In this case I would say the real problem is accurately determining actual usage from various raw download statistics for any FOSS project not just LO. A download does not mean regular user.



Jay Lozier

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.