<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Dec 28, 2017, at 8:50 PM, Miika Turkia <<a href="mailto:miika.turkia@gmail.com" class="">miika.turkia@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Dirk Hohndel <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:dirk@hohndel.org" target="_blank" class="">dirk@hohndel.org</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I could be wrong (that's one of my defining strength - I am wrong a lot). But here's my analysis: </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">About 2/3 of our users are supported with one single binary, the Windows installer. </div><div class="">Another 20% of our users are supported by one single binary, the Mac DMG (we had times had a second DMG for older versions, but given that they tended to get < 100 users, I have not spend much effort on them). </div><div class="">The remaining roughly 15% of our users today require us to build about 30 different binary packages which take up a significant amount of my time whenever we introduce a new dependency, need a feature from a newer version of a library, or some other way break things. At this point I have managed to bring down the number of build configuration systems to 3 to create the vast majority of those binary packages: the Ubuntu/Launchpad system, the openSUSE/Fedora/OBS system, plus AppImage. Additionally, community members are maintaining always current and very solid binary packages for Arch and Gentoo (I believe). Considering this maybe you can understand my reluctance better.</div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Here is a quick run-down from Launchpad for the latest release.<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> 4.7.5-1~zesty (56) - 17.04<br class=""> zesty (56)<br class=""> amd64 (53)<br class=""> i386 (3)<br class=""> 4.7.5-1~xenial (505) - 16.04 LTS<br class=""> xenial (505)<br class=""> amd64 (472)<br class=""> i386 (33)<br class=""> 4.7.5-1~artful (123) - 17.10<br class=""> artful (123)<br class=""> amd64 (120)<br class=""> i386 (3)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Those are number of people who have installed it, not number of people who use it, correct?</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="">BTW Out of curiosity, how many users you think we have in total?</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>Around 20k users who connected to the update server at least once in the last 6 months. This number overstates the number of users as for example I am counting for about 20 entries here; every single computer / VM on which I have installed Subsurface in the last 6 months shows up... but realistically, most NORMAL people have Subsurface on one or two devices, so I'm guessing this means we have more than 15k users.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Around 3k users who connected to the cloud server in the last 90 days.</div><div>Almost exactly 5k verified cloud storage accounts.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>/D</div><br class=""></body></html>