Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 12:16:02 -0700 From: "Nikolas Britton" <nikolas.britton@gmail.com> To: "Alex Zbyslaw" <xfb52@dial.pipex.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Gotta start somewhere ... how many of us are really out there? Message-ID: <ef10de9a0608021216u455099a9yf66ea2d1698f4d19@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <44D0F2FE.9020507@dial.pipex.com> References: <20060728164526.E27679@ganymede.hub.org> <17615.30414.314802.792740@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <ef10de9a0608011037w3609b5a6k1709aea61d43ed0f@mail.gmail.com> <20060801223754.U27679@ganymede.hub.org> <ef10de9a0608011859q45bdd636o757fb4aba2d3404d@mail.gmail.com> <20060801230301.Q27679@ganymede.hub.org> <df9ac37c0608012122q196a6434jf849cc7bd8c1156@mail.gmail.com> <44D09F46.6020300@dial.pipex.com> <ef10de9a0608021047u553a812fpbcf09c8c26df09b6@mail.gmail.com> <44D0F2FE.9020507@dial.pipex.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8/2/06, Alex Zbyslaw <xfb52@dial.pipex.com> wrote: > Nikolas Britton wrote: > > > On 8/2/06, Alex Zbyslaw <xfb52@dial.pipex.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> But the question then goes back to: can you make any kind of count out > >> of cvsup servers? Someone already said they thought you couldn't. > >> > >> At the end of the day, I think that unique IP address is as close as > >> it's possible to get to host count. It will undercount NATed hosts and > >> networks with single cvsup/portsnap distribution points, and will > >> overcount variable IP addresses. The latter, I think matters the least > >> as long as you do your stats over a short enough period (e.g. 1 month). > >> That wouldn't overcount much and deliberate faking would be hard and > >> limited (how many IP addresses can one faker get access to?). > > > > > > The problem with cvsup (I use cvsup.) is the error margin. The closer > > we get to release dates the more I use cvsup, It's a side effect of > > running -STABLE. anyways... back to the fakers... > > > > Lets think about the usage patterns of a "typical" faker vs NAT: > > > > Faker: > > * All from one IP address. > > * Sequential requests. > > * Scripted, so each request should be timed perfectly with the one > > before and the one after it. > > * Thousands of requests. > > > > NATed Boxes: > > * All from one IP address. > > * Parallel requests. > > * Not scripted, requests should be more random. > > * Hundreds of requests? > > But if what you are counting is IP addresses then you faker has achieved > nothing. You're not counting connections, but IP addresses. Yes, you > undercount NATed and yes you undercount when distribution points are > used, but I don't see any easy way to fake, at least not on the scale of > a URL. Yes, if you happen to have 200 IP addresses, you could probably > assign each in turn to your BSD box and cvsup, but this seems less > likely to me, and is inherently limited. > > Sometimes I cvsup three times a day - in which case all are likely to > come from same IP. Sometimes I cvsup once a month or less, in which > case looking at statistics only over the last month will tend to flatten > any effect from variable IPs. > > It's far from perfect, but unless you want each installation to have its > own license number and a "GenuineFreeBSD" program which enforces unique > license numbers somehow, I don't think there is a perfect answer. I'm > guessing no-one in their right might does want this kind of enforcement ;-) > This may sound dumb but why don't we just put a registration link on the FreeBSD main page... or "registration" in sysinstall. Isn't this how everyone else handles the problem? -- BSD Podcasts @: http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/ http://freebsdforall.blogspot.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ef10de9a0608021216u455099a9yf66ea2d1698f4d19>