Wineconf follow up: Wine Usage Data Collection

[Zachary Goldberg-3]

Hello All,

Just wanted to continue the thread from Wineconf about tracking usage
data in Wine.  We had discussed adding an opt-in system at first run
where all invokations of Wine would send a token to WineHQ to track
the number of times users run given applications to help direct
development.  Thoughts?

--Zach

[Austin English-2]

On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 11:22 PM, Zachary Goldberg <zgold@...> wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> Just wanted to continue the thread from Wineconf about tracking usage
> data in Wine.  We had discussed adding an opt-in system at first run
> where all invokations of Wine would send a token to WineHQ to track
> the number of times users run given applications to help direct
> development.  Thoughts?
>
> --Zach
>
>
>

I like this idea. Couple unaddressed problems:

If it's stored in WINEPREFIX, then each time a new prefix is used,
they'll get the prompt each time. Then again, maybe most people aren't
doing this.
How are we tracking apps? By filename/md5sum/filesize/installed filepath?

-Austin

[Steven Edwards-3]

On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:32 AM, Austin English <austinenglish@...> wrote:
> If it's stored in WINEPREFIX, then each time a new prefix is used,
> they'll get the prompt each time. Then again, maybe most people aren't
> doing this.
> How are we tracking apps? By filename/md5sum/filesize/installed filepath?

I don't think enough people really use prefixes currently for it to
matter though I'd like to see that change in the future as part of the
desktop integration work we discussed at WineConf. Also I think a
mixture of name/sha1 hash is a good way to go. It would do wonders for
us to tie in to appdb in case there is are tricks and tips for various
versions of software such as stock, sp1, sp2, etc.

--
Steven Edwards

"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and
that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo

[James Mckenzie]

Steven Edwards wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:32 AM, Austin English <austinenglish@...> wrote:
>  
>> If it's stored in WINEPREFIX, then each time a new prefix is used,
>> they'll get the prompt each time. Then again, maybe most people aren't
>> doing this.
>> How are we tracking apps? By filename/md5sum/filesize/installed filepath?
>>    
>
> I don't think enough people really use prefixes currently for it to
> matter though I'd like to see that change in the future as part of the
> desktop integration work we discussed at WineConf. Also I think a
> mixture of name/sha1 hash is a good way to go. It would do wonders for
> us to tie in to appdb in case there is are tricks and tips for various
> versions of software such as stock, sp1, sp2, etc.
>
>  

How about this for an idea:

The first time and every time thereafter they create a .wine directory,
they will get the opt-in question?

Any other WINEPREFIX will be ignored.

James McKenzie

[Austin English-2]

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 10:19 PM, James McKenzie
<jjmckenzie51@...> wrote:

> Steven Edwards wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:32 AM, Austin English <austinenglish@...> wrote:
>>
>>> If it's stored in WINEPREFIX, then each time a new prefix is used,
>>> they'll get the prompt each time. Then again, maybe most people aren't
>>> doing this.
>>> How are we tracking apps? By filename/md5sum/filesize/installed filepath?
>>>
>>
>> I don't think enough people really use prefixes currently for it to
>> matter though I'd like to see that change in the future as part of the
>> desktop integration work we discussed at WineConf. Also I think a
>> mixture of name/sha1 hash is a good way to go. It would do wonders for
>> us to tie in to appdb in case there is are tricks and tips for various
>> versions of software such as stock, sp1, sp2, etc.
>>
>>
> How about this for an idea:
>
> The first time and every time thereafter they create a .wine directory,
> they will get the opt-in question?
>
> Any other WINEPREFIX will be ignored.
>
> James McKenzie
>
>

I don't see why we need to ignore other prefixes. My concern was
simply do we run this for every prefix creation and store it within
the prefix, or are we going to store it elsewhere, under for example:
'~/.local/wine/survey-status'.

Either way, I'd love to see this done, I'm moreso just curious about
implementation.

- Austin

[Zachary Goldberg-3]

> I don't see why we need to ignore other prefixes. My concern was
> simply do we run this for every prefix creation and store it within
> the prefix, or are we going to store it elsewhere, under for example:
> '~/.local/wine/survey-status'.
>
> Either way, I'd love to see this done, I'm moreso just curious about
> implementation.
>
> - Austin
>

I agree.. and im curious: are there any other information bits we
would like to collect or display at firstrun / wineprefixcreate?  If
people see other needs for it I think it might be appropriate for Wine
to have a 'first run' dialog with some basic information / tips and
the question about survey opt-in.

[James Hawkins]

On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Zachary Goldberg <zgold@...> wrote:
>
> I agree.. and im curious: are there any other information bits we
> would like to collect or display at firstrun / wineprefixcreate?  If
> people see other needs for it I think it might be appropriate for Wine
> to have a 'first run' dialog with some basic information / tips and
> the question about survey opt-in.
>

You guys need to realize that in any given day we, as developers,
destroy and recreate wineprefixes several times.  Having a popup for
every wineprefix creation will be extremely annoying.  If this can't
be done behind the scenes, say as a winecfg option, then I wouldn't
expect to get much support for this.

--
James Hawkins

[Zachary Goldberg-3]

On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:59 PM, James Hawkins <truiken@...> wrote:

>
> You guys need to realize that in any given day we, as developers,
> destroy and recreate wineprefixes several times.  Having a popup for
> every wineprefix creation will be extremely annoying.  If this can't
> be done behind the scenes, say as a winecfg option, then I wouldn't
> expect to get much support for this.
>
> --
> James Hawkins
>

I don't see why it would present any technical problem to have a way
to disable this.. wineprefixcreate --quiet?

[Austin English-2]

On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Zachary Goldberg <zgold@...> wrote:

>> I don't see why we need to ignore other prefixes. My concern was
>> simply do we run this for every prefix creation and store it within
>> the prefix, or are we going to store it elsewhere, under for example:
>> '~/.local/wine/survey-status'.
>>
>> Either way, I'd love to see this done, I'm moreso just curious about
>> implementation.
>>
>> - Austin
>>
>
>
> I agree.. and im curious: are there any other information bits we
> would like to collect or display at firstrun / wineprefixcreate?  If
> people see other needs for it I think it might be appropriate for Wine
> to have a 'first run' dialog with some basic information / tips and
> the question about survey opt-in.
>

Off hand:
distribution name/version
kernel version
lspci
graphics driver
gcc version

[Zachary Goldberg-3]

On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Austin English <austinenglish@...> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Zachary Goldberg <zgold@...> wrote:
>>> I don't see why we need to ignore other prefixes. My concern was
>>> simply do we run this for every prefix creation and store it within
>>> the prefix, or are we going to store it elsewhere, under for example:
>>> '~/.local/wine/survey-status'.
>>>
>>> Either way, I'd love to see this done, I'm moreso just curious about
>>> implementation.
>>>
>>> - Austin
>>>
>>
>>
>> I agree.. and im curious: are there any other information bits we
>> would like to collect or display at firstrun / wineprefixcreate?  If
>> people see other needs for it I think it might be appropriate for Wine
>> to have a 'first run' dialog with some basic information / tips and
>> the question about survey opt-in.
>>
>
> Off hand:
> distribution name/version
> kernel version
> lspci
> graphics driver
> gcc version
>

I mean thats good information to have for the survey... (also the key
-- the apps a user runs) but what would we want to tell users?  How to
use wine, how to configure it etc.

[James Hawkins]

On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Zachary Goldberg <zgold@...> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:59 PM, James Hawkins <truiken@...> wrote:
>>
>> You guys need to realize that in any given day we, as developers,
>> destroy and recreate wineprefixes several times.  Having a popup for
>> every wineprefix creation will be extremely annoying.  If this can't
>> be done behind the scenes, say as a winecfg option, then I wouldn't
>> expect to get much support for this.
>>
>> --
>> James Hawkins
>>
>
> I don't see why it would present any technical problem to have a way
> to disable this.. wineprefixcreate --quiet?
>

Because then the policy is opt-out instead of opt-in.  Also,
wineprefixcreate is run automatically now anytime a wineprefix is
created; how will you handle the quiet option for those cases?  I
don't have a problem with someone figuring out a way to get usage
statistics and implementing it as long as it doesn't change our work
flow.

--
James Hawkins

[Juan Lang-4]

> Off hand:
> distribution name/version
> kernel version
> lspci
> graphics driver
> gcc version

Those strike me as a pretty large set, and perhaps more than people
want to divulge.  If they're having problems, with, say, graphics
drivers or kernels, hopefully bugzilla will tell us that.  I think
we're more curious about the apps people are running.  Do we really
need everything else?
--Juan

[Austin English-2]

On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Juan Lang <juan.lang@...> wrote:

>> Off hand:
>> distribution name/version
>> kernel version
>> lspci
>> graphics driver
>> gcc version
>
> Those strike me as a pretty large set, and perhaps more than people
> want to divulge.  If they're having problems, with, say, graphics
> drivers or kernels, hopefully bugzilla will tell us that.  I think
> we're more curious about the apps people are running.  Do we really
> need everything else?
> --Juan
>

I'm not saying we NEED all that, just things that MIGHT be useful.

App names/sha1sum should be the priority.

[Zachary Goldberg-3]

On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 3:06 PM, James Hawkins <truiken@...> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Zachary Goldberg <zgold@...> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:59 PM, James Hawkins <truiken@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> You guys need to realize that in any given day we, as developers,
>>> destroy and recreate wineprefixes several times.  Having a popup for
>>> every wineprefix creation will be extremely annoying.  If this can't
>>> be done behind the scenes, say as a winecfg option, then I wouldn't
>>> expect to get much support for this.
>>>
>>> --
>>> James Hawkins
>>>
>>
>> I don't see why it would present any technical problem to have a way
>> to disable this.. wineprefixcreate --quiet?
>>
>
> Because then the policy is opt-out instead of opt-in.  Also,
> wineprefixcreate is run automatically now anytime a wineprefix is
> created; how will you handle the quiet option for those cases?  I
> don't have a problem with someone figuring out a way to get usage
> statistics and implementing it as long as it doesn't change our work
> flow.
>
> --
> James Hawkins
>

so make it default not show, but allow distros to reverse that.

[Austin English-2]

On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:06 PM, James Hawkins <truiken@...> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Zachary Goldberg <zgold@...> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:59 PM, James Hawkins <truiken@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> You guys need to realize that in any given day we, as developers,
>>> destroy and recreate wineprefixes several times.  Having a popup for
>>> every wineprefix creation will be extremely annoying.  If this can't
>>> be done behind the scenes, say as a winecfg option, then I wouldn't
>>> expect to get much support for this.
>>>
>>> --
>>> James Hawkins
>>>
>>
>> I don't see why it would present any technical problem to have a way
>> to disable this.. wineprefixcreate --quiet?
>>
>
> Because then the policy is opt-out instead of opt-in.  Also,
> wineprefixcreate is run automatically now anytime a wineprefix is
> created; how will you handle the quiet option for those cases?  I
> don't have a problem with someone figuring out a way to get usage
> statistics and implementing it as long as it doesn't change our work
> flow.
>
> --
> James Hawkins
>

How about we add it in the Winecfg about box, below the registration
information, to enable the survey?

Most people won't be bothered, but those curious people that search in
there would find it. Send a note along to wine-users/add it in the
announcements, so people can be aware of it.

- Austin

[Chris Ahrendt]

Juan Lang wrote:

>> Off hand:
>> distribution name/version
>> kernel version
>> lspci
>> graphics driver
>> gcc version
>
> Those strike me as a pretty large set, and perhaps more than people
> want to divulge.  If they're having problems, with, say, graphics
> drivers or kernels, hopefully bugzilla will tell us that.  I think
> we're more curious about the apps people are running.  Do we really
> need everything else?
> --Juan
>
>

I think we do Juan..
reason being is that information is not always captured when people put
things into bugzilla..  if we had a way that its entered initially (if
we could gather it automagically)  then have them attach the file  when
they do a bugzilla that might work a little better...

this of course is just my opinion...

chris

[Zachary Goldberg-3]

On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Austin English <austinenglish@...> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:06 PM, James Hawkins <truiken@...> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Zachary Goldberg <zgold@...> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:59 PM, James Hawkins <truiken@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You guys need to realize that in any given day we, as developers,
>>>> destroy and recreate wineprefixes several times.  Having a popup for
>>>> every wineprefix creation will be extremely annoying.  If this can't
>>>> be done behind the scenes, say as a winecfg option, then I wouldn't
>>>> expect to get much support for this.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> James Hawkins
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't see why it would present any technical problem to have a way
>>> to disable this.. wineprefixcreate --quiet?
>>>
>>
>> Because then the policy is opt-out instead of opt-in.  Also,
>> wineprefixcreate is run automatically now anytime a wineprefix is
>> created; how will you handle the quiet option for those cases?  I
>> don't have a problem with someone figuring out a way to get usage
>> statistics and implementing it as long as it doesn't change our work
>> flow.
>>
>> --
>> James Hawkins
>>
>
> How about we add it in the Winecfg about box, below the registration
> information, to enable the survey?
>
> Most people won't be bothered, but those curious people that search in
> there would find it. Send a note along to wine-users/add it in the
> announcements, so people can be aware of it.
>
> - Austin
>

i dont think wede get enough responses in that scenario.

[James Hawkins]

On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Zachary Goldberg <zgold@...> wrote:
>
> so make it default not show, but allow distros to reverse that.
>

That doesn't solve the problem.  We want usage statistics; therefore,
in this hypothetical situation we want the distros to enable it.
We're back to the original problem of bugging developers and users who
don't want a popup.

--
James Hawkins

[Guillaume VanderEst-2]

It could also be possible to have a crash count?

On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Zachary Goldberg <zgold@...> wrote:

Hello All,

Just wanted to continue the thread from Wineconf about tracking usage
data in Wine.  We had discussed adding an opt-in system at first run
where all invokations of Wine would send a token to WineHQ to track
the number of times users run given applications to help direct
development.  Thoughts?

--Zach