5.00 score from hupso.pl for:
twothirty.am



HTML Content


Titleposts

Length: 5, Words: 1
Description can't sleep!

Length: 16, Words: 3
Keywords pusty
Robots
Charset UTF-8
Og Meta - Title pusty
Og Meta - Description pusty
Og Meta - Site name pusty
Tytuł powinien zawierać pomiędzy 10 a 70 znaków (ze spacjami), a mniej niż 12 słów w długości.
Meta opis powinien zawierać pomiędzy 50 a 160 znaków (łącznie ze spacjami), a mniej niż 24 słów w długości.
Kodowanie znaków powinny być określone , UTF-8 jest chyba najlepszy zestaw znaków, aby przejść z powodu UTF-8 jest bardziej międzynarodowy kodowaniem.
Otwarte obiekty wykresu powinny być obecne w stronie internetowej (więcej informacji na temat protokołu OpenGraph: http://ogp.me/)

SEO Content

Words/Characters 3439
Text/HTML 50.10 %
Headings H1 1
H2 10
H3 0
H4 4
H5 0
H6 0
H1
up at two thirty
H2
introductory python programming sessions in kuwait
the mythical django pony, a blessing?
django … an outlier
contributor analysis
identifying contributors in floss  projects
modularity of freebsd, haiku, and openoffice.org
how great is django’s documentation?
richness vs. generalizability
brook’s law at work
presentation material for oss2009  pc
H3
H4 sunday, nov 21st 2010 7pm — 9pm: an introduction to revision control with git.
tuesday, nov 23rd 2010 7pm — 9pm: an introduction to the python programming language.
thursday, nov 25th 2010 7pm — 9pm: an introduction to web application development with django.
requirements:
H5
H6
strong
“it’s difficult to identify floss contributors”
b
“it’s difficult to identify floss contributors”
i
em “it’s difficult to identify floss contributors”
Bolds strong 1
b 1
i 0
em 1
Zawartość strony internetowej powinno zawierać więcej niż 250 słów, z stopa tekst / kod jest wyższy niż 20%.
Pozycji używać znaczników (h1, h2, h3, ...), aby określić temat sekcji lub ustępów na stronie, ale zwykle, użyj mniej niż 6 dla każdego tagu pozycje zachować swoją stronę zwięzły.
Styl używać silnych i kursywy znaczniki podkreślić swoje słowa kluczowe swojej stronie, ale nie nadużywać (mniej niż 16 silnych tagi i 16 znaczników kursywy)

Statystyki strony

twitter:title pusty
twitter:description pusty
google+ itemprop=name pusty
Pliki zewnętrzne 11
Pliki CSS 4
Pliki javascript 7
Plik należy zmniejszyć całkowite odwołanie plików (CSS + JavaScript) do 7-8 maksymalnie.

Linki wewnętrzne i zewnętrzne

Linki 188
Linki wewnętrzne 178
Linki zewnętrzne 10
Linki bez atrybutu Title 52
Linki z atrybutem NOFOLLOW 0
Linki - Użyj atrybutu tytuł dla każdego łącza. Nofollow link jest link, który nie pozwala wyszukiwarkom boty zrealizują są odnośniki no follow. Należy zwracać uwagę na ich użytkowania

Linki wewnętrzne

up at two thirty /
close #
forgot it? /accounts/reset/
close #
password #
openid #
hacking's blog /blog/author/hacking
up's blog /blog/author/up
introductory python programming sessions in kuwait /blog/2010/11/19/introductory-python-programming-sessions/
19 /blog/2010/11/19/
11 /blog/2010/11/
2010 /blog/2010/
2 pingbacks /blog/2010/11/19/introductory-python-programming-sessions/#pingbacks
django /blog/tag/django/
git /blog/tag/git/
python /blog/tag/python/
training /blog/tag/training/
the mythical django pony, a blessing? /blog/2009/10/07/blessing-mythical-django-pony/
07 /blog/2009/10/07/
10 /blog/2009/10/
2009 /blog/2009/
4 comments /blog/2009/10/07/blessing-mythical-django-pony/#comments
2 pingbacks /blog/2009/10/07/blessing-mythical-django-pony/#pingbacks
complexity /blog/tag/complexity/
django /blog/tag/django/
floss /blog/tag/floss/
phd /blog/tag/phd/
django … an outlier /blog/2009/09/01/django-outlier/
01 /blog/2009/09/01/
09 /blog/2009/09/
2009 /blog/2009/
2 comments /blog/2009/09/01/django-outlier/#comments
1 pingback /blog/2009/09/01/django-outlier/#pingbacks
django /blog/tag/django/
floss /blog/tag/floss/
phd /blog/tag/phd/
statistics /blog/tag/statistics/
click to enlarge image /media/cooks.png
contributor analysis /blog/2009/08/11/contributor-analysis/
11 /blog/2009/08/11/
08 /blog/2009/08/
2009 /blog/2009/
4 comments /blog/2009/08/11/contributor-analysis/#comments
11 pingbacks /blog/2009/08/11/contributor-analysis/#pingbacks
contributors /blog/tag/contributors/
django /blog/tag/django/
floss /blog/tag/floss/
identifying contributors in floss projects /blog/2009/07/30/identifying-contributors-floss-projects/
30 /blog/2009/07/30/
07 /blog/2009/07/
2009 /blog/2009/
2 pingbacks /blog/2009/07/30/identifying-contributors-floss-projects/#pingbacks
analysis /blog/tag/analysis/
beautifulsoup /blog/tag/beautifulsoup/
floss /blog/tag/floss/
httplib2 /blog/tag/httplib2/
mapserver /blog/tag/mapserver/
modularity of freebsd, haiku, and openoffice.org /blog/2009/06/29/modularity-freebsd-haiku-and-openofficeorg/
29 /blog/2009/06/29/
06 /blog/2009/06/
2009 /blog/2009/
floss /blog/tag/floss/
freebsd /blog/tag/freebsd/
haiku /blog/tag/haiku/
linux /blog/tag/linux/
modularity /blog/tag/modularity/
openoffice.org /blog/tag/openoffice.org/
how great is django’s documentation? /blog/2009/06/22/documentation/
22 /blog/2009/06/22/
06 /blog/2009/06/
2009 /blog/2009/
16 comments /blog/2009/06/22/documentation/#comments
4 pingbacks /blog/2009/06/22/documentation/#pingbacks
django /blog/tag/django/
documentation /blog/tag/documentation/
opensource /blog/tag/opensource/
plot /blog/tag/plot/
richness vs. generalizability /blog/2009/06/09/richness-vs-generalizability/
09 /blog/2009/06/09/
06 /blog/2009/06/
2009 /blog/2009/
floss /blog/tag/floss/
oss2009 /blog/tag/oss2009/
phd /blog/tag/phd/
research /blog/tag/research/
brook’s law at work /blog/2009/06/08/brooks-law-work/
08 /blog/2009/06/08/
06 /blog/2009/06/
2009 /blog/2009/
floss /blog/tag/floss/
modularity /blog/tag/modularity/
oss2009 /blog/tag/oss2009/
click to enlarge image /media/modvsloc.png
presentation material for oss2009 pc /blog/2009/05/31/presentation-material-phd-consortium/
31 /blog/2009/05/31/
05 /blog/2009/05/
2009 /blog/2009/
dissertation /blog/tag/dissertation/
floss /blog/tag/floss/
phd /blog/tag/phd/
presentation /blog/tag/presentation/
older posts ?page=2
- /feeds/atom/comments/
the mythical django pony, a blessing? /blog/2009/10/07/blessing-mythical-django-pony/#c1044
how great is django's documentation? /blog/2009/06/22/documentation/#c1038
how great is django's documentation? /blog/2009/06/22/documentation/#c1036
how great is django's documentation? /blog/2009/06/22/documentation/#c1035
how great is django's documentation? /blog/2009/06/22/documentation/#c1033
- /feeds/atom/blog/
introductory python programming sessions in kuwait /blog/2010/11/19/introductory-python-programming-sessions/
the mythical django pony, a blessing? /blog/2009/10/07/blessing-mythical-django-pony/
django … an outlier /blog/2009/09/01/django-outlier/
contributor analysis /blog/2009/08/11/contributor-analysis/
identifying contributors in floss projects /blog/2009/07/30/identifying-contributors-floss-projects/
analysis /blog/tag/analysis/
beautifulsoup /blog/tag/beautifulsoup/
blog /blog/tag/blog/
boring /blog/tag/boring/
buyout /blog/tag/buyout/
cherrypy /blog/tag/cherrypy/
cisco /blog/tag/cisco/
complexity /blog/tag/complexity/
conspiracy_theory /blog/tag/conspiracy_theory/
contributors /blog/tag/contributors/
copyright /blog/tag/copyright/
data /blog/tag/data/
dissertation /blog/tag/dissertation/
django /blog/tag/django/
django_evolution /blog/tag/django_evolution/
documentation /blog/tag/documentation/
encoding /blog/tag/encoding/
first_time /blog/tag/first_time/
floss /blog/tag/floss/
forms /blog/tag/forms/
freebsd /blog/tag/freebsd/
genshi /blog/tag/genshi/
git /blog/tag/git/
gotcha /blog/tag/gotcha/
graphs /blog/tag/graphs/
haiku /blog/tag/haiku/
httplib2 /blog/tag/httplib2/
ibm /blog/tag/ibm/
initial_value /blog/tag/initial_value/
internet /blog/tag/internet/
isps /blog/tag/isps/
java /blog/tag/java/
koutbo6.com /blog/tag/koutbo6.com/
linux /blog/tag/linux/
mapserver /blog/tag/mapserver/
market /blog/tag/market/
modularity /blog/tag/modularity/
ohshit /blog/tag/ohshit/
openoffice.org /blog/tag/openoffice.org/
opensource /blog/tag/opensource/
orm /blog/tag/orm/
oss2009 /blog/tag/oss2009/
paranoid /blog/tag/paranoid/
phd /blog/tag/phd/
php /blog/tag/php/
pinax /blog/tag/pinax/
piracy /blog/tag/piracy/
piratebay /blog/tag/piratebay/
plot /blog/tag/plot/
presentation /blog/tag/presentation/
python /blog/tag/python/
research /blog/tag/research/
sqlalchemy /blog/tag/sqlalchemy/
statistics /blog/tag/statistics/
sun /blog/tag/sun/
tinyurl /blog/tag/tinyurl/
training /blog/tag/training/
turbogears /blog/tag/turbogears/
ubuntu /blog/tag/ubuntu/
unicode /blog/tag/unicode/
utf8 /blog/tag/utf8/
work /blog/tag/work/
yro /blog/tag/yro/
up at two thirty /

Linki zewnętrzne

for download & installation instructions http://git-scm.com/download
for download & installation instructions http://www.python.org/download/
way off the charts http://twothirty.am/blog/2009/08/11/contributor-analysis/
modularity http://twothirty.am/blog/2009/04/09/django-code-base-modularity/
previous post http://twothirty.am/blog/2009/04/09/django-code-base-modularity/
different python based projects http://twothirty.am/blog/2009/04/09/django-code-base-modularity/
here http://drop.io/xwifqi5
must know about unicode http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/unicode.html
phd essays and presentation http://drop.io/xwifqi5
byteflow http://byteflow.su

Zdjęcia

Zdjęcia 5
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT 3
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE 5
Korzystanie Obraz ALT i TITLE atrybutu dla każdego obrazu.

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE

/media/cooks.png
/media/docratiosloc.png
/media/modvsloc.png
/static/img/feed-icon-14x14.png
/static/img/feed-icon-14x14.png

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT

/media/cooks.png
/media/docratiosloc.png
/media/modvsloc.png

Ranking:


Alexa Traffic
Daily Global Rank Trend
Daily Reach (Percent)









Majestic SEO











Text on page:

up at two thirty can't sleep! close forgot it? close login with password or openid blog | hacking's blog | up's blog introductory python programming sessions in kuwait posted by: up | 19.11.2010 17:37 | 0 comments | 2 pingbacks | django, git, python, training kbsoft will be conducting a series of introductory sessions designed to introduce programmers to new programming tools and to help improve their programming skills. the sessions are: sunday, nov 21st 2010 7pm — 9pm: an introduction to revision control with git. the goal of this session is to introduce how revision control systems can be an indispensable tool to programmers. git will be the tool of choice for this session and we will go through a number of exercises to show how useful it can be to both individual programmers and programming teams. we will also be introducing a number of best practices for using using git and help the attendees get more familiar with the system. tuesday, nov 23rd 2010 7pm — 9pm: an introduction to the python programming language. the goal of this session is to introduce python as a general purpose programming language that can be used to solve most problems faced by programmers in kuwait. there will be a number of exercises to introduce the language syntax and features. in addition to an overview of some of the useful packages in the standard library, language best practices, and how to setup a functional development environment. thursday, nov 25th 2010 7pm — 9pm: an introduction to web application development with django. the goal of this session is to introduce django as the tool of choice for web development. our approach will be to contrast the django development model with that of the common php model that most attendees might be familiar with as they explored and learned php. we will be introducing the main components of the django framework and go through a simple exercise that would give the users an appreciation of how useful and time-saving this framework can be. the sessions will be held in kuwait information technology society (kits, formerly kcs) in alrawda. the building is at the very corner of alrawda directly in front of aljabriya and on the intersection of the 4th ring road with king fahad highway. requirements: understanding of at least a single programming language (e.g., php, vb, c, java) laptop with the following installed to go through the exercises (no love will be shown for windows users, your on your own ;) ): git: for download & installation instructions python: for download & installation instructions, linux and mac users can type “python” in terminal to confirm that its pre-installed text editor of choice, or you might try pycharm, wing, komodo, netbeans, or eclipse with pydev strongly recommended: bring your own internet connection, as the connection there might not be reliable the mythical django pony, a blessing? posted by: up | 07.10.2009 2:06 | 4 comments | 2 pingbacks | complexity, django, floss, phd on my way to have lunch on the first day of djangocon in portland, i met eric holscher in one of the corridors of the hotel holding a pink unicorn. it seemed odd to me so i approached and asked him about what he had in his hands. he explained that this was the unofficial django mascot, which was a pony. i didn’t make the obvious observation that what he had in his hands was a unicorn, but asked how this came to be. he explained that one of the core dev on the django mailing list responded to one of the feature requests saying “no, you can’t have a pony!” as a way of politely refusing the feature request. i was surprised to be in a djangocon session two days later where russell keith-magee talks about declined feature requests and how they are referred to as ponies, and suggests ways in which your features are likely to get accepted. he also explained the whole story behind the mythical django pony (which is really a unicorn!). why am i bringing this up now? well as i write the concluding chapters of my dissertation, i notice an odd relationship between the number of modules present in a code base and the number of new contributors. the statistical model suggests that adding modules to a code base is associated with an increase in the number of new contributors. however, this relationship reverses itself for projects that have an above average number of modules. so adding modules when there are already a high number of modules results in fewer contributors joining the development effort over time. the same effect could be observed for average module size (measured in sloc), where an increase in the average size of a module is associated with an increase in new contributors up to a certain point. then, the relationship starts to reverse (quadratic effect for those of you who are statistically inclined). it dawned on me that one of the explanations for such an observation is that an increase in the number of modules or an increase in the average size of a module is a result of the increased complexity in the code base from adding or implementing a feature. assuming that the projects in my sample are not mature to a point where there is no need for new contributors to join, then we can attribute the decrease or increase in numbers of new contributor to the balancing act of complexity where the community correctly decides to include just enough features as to not make the codebase overly complex for new participants and yet valuable enough for new members to start using and contributing to it (please don’t bite my head off for implying causation here, i am just forwarding a hypothesis that seems to be supported by the data. it’s up to you whether to accept it or not). so how does this relate to ponies? well, i just might have put my finger on one of the things that makes django unique, and that’s the core developers know how to play this balancing act by knowing when to include or refuse a new feature. this i believe is possible because there is what we can refer to as a django philosophy in deciding which feature requests are considered ponies. this seems to be paying off as participation in django is way off the charts. don’t ask me what the django philosophy is, as i have no idea. i am just observing its results. if someone out there thinks he knows what it is, or has a link, please do share. take away from this, at least for other floss projects that want to learn from the django community. be clear on the goals you want to achieve with your project, and don’t be afraid of saying “no! you can’t have a pony!”. as for the django community, you are already on the right track in trying to explain why features are refused. keep at it! update: here is the django philosophy summed up quite eloquently by dougal matthews: i think the philosophy is quite simple generally. “does this need to be in the core?” you can read his comment for more explanation. django … an outlier posted by: up | 01.09.2009 5:54 | 2 comments | 1 pingback | django, floss, phd, statistics while analyzing the development activity and code metrics for over 240 of the most actively developed floss projects, guess which project popped out? yes django! its an outlier in terms of its activity. it’s influencing the results of my statistical analysis more than any other project as per the cook’s distance diagnostic index. let me bring your attention to the lonely dot that is close to the value 1 at the top right corner. i missed it at first, but noticed it when i looked at the sorted values. this is telling us that at least among the sample that i have ,python, c and c++ based actively developed floss projects, django (including its community) is quite unique. i leave you with the graph of sorted cook’s d values from my analysis: click to enlarge image contributor analysis posted by: up | 11.08.2009 19:14 | 4 comments | 11 pingbacks | contributors, django, floss some of you might find it interesting to know that over 900 unique contributors have participated in django’s development since jan 1st, 2007, as attributed by the svn log messages. i would say the community is very healthy especially if you compare it to other well known projects: django: 906 pylons: 80 pypy: 240 linux kernel: 4043 postgresql: 150 appache http server: 118 sqlalchemy: 36 (contributors identified from trac tickets mentioned in svn log) python: 428 note that i consider anonymous or guest contributors as a single contributor, so these number can be considered conservative if the project allows anonymous contributions. identifying contributors in floss projects posted by: up | 30.07.2009 20:00 | 0 comments | 2 pingbacks | analysis, beautifulsoup, floss, httplib2, mapserver as part of my graduate work, i need to analyze floss repositories to identify number of external contributors. what i mean by an external contributor is any individual who made a patch contribution without having commit access to the source code repositories in addition to being a first time contributor. what i usually do to identify contributors in general, is to parse the commit logs for any attribution to individuals who are not committers. take for example the following log message: fixed #9859 – added another missing force unicode needed in admin when 15 running on python 2.3. many thanks for report & patch to nfg. - (django revision 9656) i wrote some regex based scripts to identify names or pseudo-names such as “nfg” from previous example. things however are not always clear cut for floss projects as not all projects attribute contributors in the log message. for example, i noticed in the mapserver project, which seems to be actively developed, that there were no attributions in the log messages. after inquiring in irc, it turns out that the attributions are available in the project tracker (thanks danmo!). what is included in the commit log message is a reference to the ticket number so i pulled up my sleeves, and wrote a quick parser to identify all ticket numbers in the log messages. i then used httplib2 and beautifulsoup to connect to project tracker, and parse the patch name and contributor. the following is the code i used to perform that task: import httplib2 from beautifulsoup import beautifulsoup as bs def get_mapserver_author(ticket): url = 'http://trac.osgeo.org/mapserver/ticket/%s' % ticket h = httplib2.http(".cache") resp, content = h.request(url, "get") bs = bs(content) div = bs.find('div',id='attachments') patches = [] for y in div.findall('dt'): try: patches.append((y.em.string,y.a.string)) except: print 'problem parsing ticket ',ticket return patches i managed to identify 68 unique names for the duration between jan. 1st, 2007 and june 1st, 2009. these are of course the names of contributors who are not necessarily first time contributors. further analysis is needed before one can determine which of these contributors are “external. of course, it goes without saying, that the number of contributors is just an estimate. there might be some other contributions made through the mailing list (thanks frankw for pointing this out). not to mention the likelihood that an individual might have two different pseudo-names. as jmkenna (irc: #mapserver) simply put it “it’s difficult to identify floss contributors” just in case you are wondering, here are the names: warmerdam aalbarello unicoletti tamas jimk rouault dmorissette tomkralidis aboudreault brage armin bartvde diletant pramsey nmandery nharding eshabtai@gmail.com assefa bartvde@osgis.nl dfuhry hschoenhammer project10 hopfgartner ujunge@pmcentral.com sdlime richf dionw nnikolov abajolet laurent tbonfort bobbruce nsavard woodbri flavio scott.e@goisc.com dstrevinas ivanopicco jlacroix cplist kfaschoway szigeti zjames elzouavo mcoladas@telefonica.net nfarrell@bom.gov.au jparapar vulukut@tescilturk.com novorado russellmcormond msmitherdc crschmidt hjaekel peter.hopfgartner@r3-gis.com hulst mturk@apache.org thomas.bonfort@gmail.com ivano.picco@aqupi.tk jmckenna drewsimpson bartw djay sholl dirk@advtechme.com cph jratike80 hobu hpbrantley modularity of freebsd, haiku, and openoffice.org posted by: up | 29.06.2009 20:14 | 0 comments | 0 pingbacks | floss, freebsd, haiku, linux, modularity, openoffice.org while analyzing data for my dissertation, i gave up on analyzing the modularity of freebsd, haiku, and openoffice.org. i was trying to get 8 different modularity readings in time, but decided to stop analyzing these projects. why? well, after having my mbp run non-stop for a week without getting a single data point, it became clear that i will not be graduating if i continued to pursue that route. anyone out there looked at the source code of these projects? was it surprising that the graph analysis i was performing took ages? how easy is it to find your way around these projects? it took a whole day to obtain all readings of modularity of the linux kernel using the same measure. it averaged around .92, which is excellent. i take it the projects i stopped analyzing aren’t as modular as the linux kernel. how great is django’s documentation? posted by: up | 22.06.2009 3:19 | 16 comments | 4 pingbacks | django, documentation, opensource, plot one aspect of django that never ceases to amaze me, is how well it is documented. i believe this aspect of the django project got many of us to use it, me included. while doing some boring graduate donkey work, django’s name popped out, and not surprisingly, as one of the highly documented code bases out there (only projects focusing on documentation came close!). so lets me take this opportunity to thank all those who might be reading this, who had a hand in making django what it is (thank you!) the lines of documentation to sloc ratio is plotted against sloc for 1st of jan, 2009. django has one of the highest ratios compared to other open source projects of similar size (see the top part of the graph). of course i could have plotted doc lines to sloc, but then i have to show the deviation of django from the regression line. this graph just makes it more obvious and is easier to plot: click to enlarge, and don’t forget to zoom in. i also have a few questions should any django contributors pass by. any of you guys think that you might have over done it? is it difficult to maintain the quality of the documentation and keep it up-to-date and did anything change after moving to a regular release schedule? is it only contributors experienced with the django code base, who are able to write documentation to ensure quality? since i also live in a world where ponies roam and correlation is always seen as causation, let me end this post by saying: good documentation is the cause of success for django, and high ice cream consumption is the cause of increased deaths in neighborhoods with swimming pools during summer! richness vs. generalizability posted by: up | 09.06.2009 16:13 | 0 comments | 0 pingbacks | floss, oss2009, phd, research it was an interesting couple of days at the oss2009 conference. i presented the floss marketplace paper as part of the phd consortium and found the feedback to be very constructive. my goal was to get feedback on the validity of measures i am using to test my theories, and was able to get some valuable insights. being trained in quantitative methods and a positivists philosophy, my inclination was to build generalizable theories about floss communities and attempt to falsify them. which explains why i used theories like tct and organizational information processing theory to build my research models with a project unit of analysis. this proved the biggest discussion point in many of my conversations. i managed to gather some useful insights, which i couldn’t have easily gathered on my own. this made me appreciate the value of diversity in research philosophies and methods in the conference. what was made clear through the discourse was that each floss community has unique processes, members and software. this made me reconsider some of the limitations of my methods, and improve on some of them whenever possible. one particular approach that was suggested to me at the conference was to use a mixed method approach, in which i use qualitative methods on a limited sample of the projects i am observing and show that the nuances in these project follow the predictions and logic of my theory. i could then use quantitative methods to generalize my findings. to give an example of some of the methodological issues that caught me by surprise, consider the estimate of productivity when measured as lines of code added or removed in a commit. according to hoffman and reihle, the unified patch format does not track changed line, but rather, considered any changed line to be a line removed, and line added. a seemingly good estimate of productivity that takes such an issue into account was presented at the conference, which i thought to be valuable. getting to meet some floss developers in the conference, and talking with them about research ideas and our work was also enlightening. it was interesting to know what were the important issues and challenges faced by developers which would allow us to make our research more relevant. furthermore, i found it valuable to get an account from practitioners on how some of the assumptions and theoretical explanations in my work reflects in reality. based on the discussions, i got a feeling that the focus of most researchers i have met was on building rich and specialized theories. i felt that generalizable theories were somewhat under represented. i could not tell if this was due to the philosophical background of many of the european researchers i have met, or because the floss phenomenon is not yet well understood and that richness is needed before we can generalize. personally, i think there is value in generalization and we know enough about at least the software development practices to start building such theories. i would love to hear the thoughts of whoever reads this post on whether its possible or valuable to build generalizable theories related to the floss phenomenon. brook’s law at work posted by: up | 08.06.2009 17:33 | 0 comments | 0 pingbacks | floss, modularity, oss2009 here is a snapshot of how different floss projects compare in terms of source lines of code (log scale) graphed to modularity from march 2008 and for a total of 200+ observations (as described in previous post). click to enlarge image given that i have sampled the projects from the top 1000 listed on ohloh.net, which are mostly actively developed floss projects, one could see that a good organization of source code dependencies is needed to be maintained for development to continue as suggested by brook’s law. this might explain why we have an almost empty bottom right quadrant, which represents projects with a large code base and poor organization of dependencies. the significance of this graph lies in that it adds to the validity of the graph modularity measure we used in comparing different python based projects. this is hopefully but one step in many for us to better understand floss project management. presentation material for oss2009 pc posted by: up | 31.05.2009 0:52 | 0 comments | 0 pingbacks | dissertation, floss, phd, presentation click here to get the latest copy of my dissertation essays and my oss2009 presentation. older posts last comments the mythical django pony, a blessing? by kyeldon.myopenid.com/ how great is django's documentation? by pragatiseo-gmail.com how great is django's documentation? by profseo24-gmail.com how great is django's documentation? by otori.inc-gmail.com how great is django's documentation? by storobins062-gmail.com last posts introductory python programming sessions in kuwait by up the mythical django pony, a blessing? by up django … an outlier by up contributor analysis by up identifying contributors in floss projects by up --> popular posts--> --> tags analysis beautifulsoup blog boring buyout cherrypy cisco complexity conspiracy_theory contributors copyright data dissertation django django_evolution documentation encoding first_time floss forms freebsd genshi git gotcha graphs haiku httplib2 ibm initial_value internet isps java koutbo6.com linux mapserver market modularity ohshit openoffice.org opensource orm oss2009 paranoid phd php pinax piracy piratebay plot presentation python research sqlalchemy statistics sun tinyurl training turbogears ubuntu unicode utf8 work yro blogroll must know about unicode phd essays and presentation up at two thirty © 2016, powered by byteflow


Here you find all texts from your page as Google (googlebot) and others search engines seen it.

Words density analysis:

Numbers of all words: 3391

One word

Two words phrases

Three words phrases

the - 6.31% (214)
and - 1.95% (66)
for - 1.47% (50)
jan - 1.47% (50)
django - 1.39% (47)
but - 1.33% (45)
that - 1.27% (43)
project - 1% (34)
his - 0.97% (33)
this - 0.88% (30)
contributor - 0.86% (29)
are - 0.8% (27)
floss - 0.77% (26)
how - 0.71% (24)
you - 0.68% (23)
contributors - 0.65% (22)
projects - 0.65% (22)
here - 0.65% (22)
use - 0.65% (22)
out - 0.65% (22)
with - 0.62% (21)
our - 0.62% (21)
was - 0.59% (20)
not - 0.56% (19)
dev - 0.56% (19)
one - 0.56% (19)
have - 0.53% (18)
log - 0.53% (18)
all - 0.53% (18)
post - 0.5% (17)
code - 0.5% (17)
doc - 0.44% (15)
can - 0.44% (15)
number - 0.44% (15)
which - 0.44% (15)
ice - 0.41% (14)
some - 0.41% (14)
able - 0.38% (13)
any - 0.38% (13)
get - 0.38% (13)
what - 0.35% (12)
there - 0.35% (12)
documentation - 0.35% (12)
ring - 0.35% (12)
act - 0.35% (12)
python - 0.35% (12)
comment - 0.35% (12)
base - 0.32% (11)
from - 0.32% (11)
line - 0.32% (11)
met - 0.32% (11)
comments - 0.32% (11)
who - 0.29% (10)
pingback - 0.29% (10)
might - 0.29% (10)
present - 0.29% (10)
posted - 0.29% (10)
by: - 0.29% (10)
session - 0.29% (10)
modular - 0.29% (10)
will - 0.29% (10)
way - 0.29% (10)
feature - 0.29% (10)
general - 0.29% (10)
orm - 0.27% (9)
analysis - 0.27% (9)
modularity - 0.27% (9)
open - 0.27% (9)
pingbacks - 0.27% (9)
new - 0.27% (9)
per - 0.27% (9)
development - 0.27% (9)
off - 0.27% (9)
module - 0.27% (9)
unit - 0.27% (9)
name - 0.24% (8)
graph - 0.24% (8)
ticket - 0.24% (8)
increase - 0.24% (8)
http - 0.24% (8)
identify - 0.24% (8)
its - 0.24% (8)
div - 0.24% (8)
work - 0.24% (8)
know - 0.24% (8)
see - 0.24% (8)
programming - 0.24% (8)
research - 0.24% (8)
floss, - 0.21% (7)
say - 0.21% (7)
day - 0.21% (7)
part - 0.21% (7)
these - 0.21% (7)
end - 0.21% (7)
read - 0.21% (7)
patch - 0.21% (7)
source - 0.21% (7)
pony - 0.21% (7)
using - 0.21% (7)
phd - 0.21% (7)
own - 0.21% (7)
your - 0.21% (7)
need - 0.21% (7)
theories - 0.21% (7)
method - 0.21% (7)
just - 0.21% (7)
top - 0.21% (7)
git - 0.18% (6)
about - 0.18% (6)
trac - 0.18% (6)
consider - 0.18% (6)
build - 0.18% (6)
well - 0.18% (6)
than - 0.18% (6)
over - 0.18% (6)
oss2009 - 0.18% (6)
let - 0.18% (6)
time - 0.18% (6)
community - 0.18% (6)
when - 0.18% (6)
explain - 0.18% (6)
message - 0.18% (6)
names - 0.18% (6)
modules - 0.18% (6)
could - 0.18% (6)
value - 0.18% (6)
most - 0.18% (6)
used - 0.18% (6)
mapserver - 0.18% (6)
other - 0.18% (6)
linux - 0.18% (6)
django, - 0.18% (6)
more - 0.18% (6)
why - 0.15% (5)
where - 0.15% (5)
analyzing - 0.15% (5)
then - 0.15% (5)
blog - 0.15% (5)
point - 0.15% (5)
high - 0.15% (5)
sessions - 0.15% (5)
introduce - 0.15% (5)
dissertation - 0.15% (5)
presentation - 0.15% (5)
measure - 0.15% (5)
philosophy - 0.15% (5)
take - 0.15% (5)
valuable - 0.15% (5)
is, - 0.15% (5)
documentation? - 0.15% (5)
beautifulsoup - 0.15% (5)
plot - 0.15% (5)
httplib2 - 0.15% (5)
thank - 0.15% (5)
many - 0.15% (5)
1st - 0.15% (5)
commit - 0.15% (5)
made - 0.15% (5)
language - 0.15% (5)
first - 0.15% (5)
also - 0.15% (5)
complex - 0.15% (5)
great - 0.15% (5)
through - 0.15% (5)
methods - 0.15% (5)
make - 0.15% (5)
unique - 0.15% (5)
goal - 0.15% (5)
find - 0.15% (5)
conference - 0.15% (5)
average - 0.15% (5)
include - 0.12% (4)
don’t - 0.12% (4)
ask - 0.12% (4)
two - 0.12% (4)
clear - 0.12% (4)
lines - 0.12% (4)
haiku - 0.12% (4)
freebsd - 0.12% (4)
django's - 0.12% (4)
large - 0.12% (4)
under - 0.12% (4)
rich - 0.12% (4)
follow - 0.12% (4)
cause - 0.12% (4)
ponies - 0.12% (4)
sloc - 0.12% (4)
got - 0.12% (4)
track - 0.12% (4)
data - 0.12% (4)
openoffice.org - 0.12% (4)
different - 0.12% (4)
course - 0.12% (4)
were - 0.12% (4)
example - 0.12% (4)
click - 0.12% (4)
based - 0.12% (4)
developed - 0.12% (4)
actively - 0.12% (4)
think - 0.12% (4)
needed - 0.12% (4)
right - 0.12% (4)
would - 0.12% (4)
nov - 0.12% (4)
least - 0.12% (4)
size - 0.12% (4)
programmers - 0.12% (4)
individual - 0.12% (4)
useful - 0.12% (4)
list - 0.12% (4)
try - 0.12% (4)
contributors. - 0.12% (4)
kuwait - 0.12% (4)
mythical - 0.12% (4)
tool - 0.12% (4)
2010 - 0.12% (4)
had - 0.12% (4)
features - 0.12% (4)
exercise - 0.12% (4)
saying - 0.12% (4)
king - 0.12% (4)
show - 0.12% (4)
close - 0.12% (4)
sample - 0.12% (4)
model - 0.12% (4)
such - 0.12% (4)
result - 0.12% (4)
approach - 0.12% (4)
complexity - 0.12% (4)
php - 0.12% (4)
stop - 0.09% (3)
revision - 0.09% (3)
like - 0.09% (3)
theory - 0.09% (3)
generalizable - 0.09% (3)
blessing? - 0.09% (3)
pony, - 0.09% (3)
give - 0.09% (3)
choice - 0.09% (3)
compare - 0.09% (3)
ratio - 0.09% (3)
main - 0.09% (3)
external - 0.09% (3)
messages. - 0.09% (3)
1st, - 0.09% (3)
observation - 0.09% (3)
django’s - 0.09% (3)
interesting - 0.09% (3)
came - 0.09% (3)
introduction - 0.09% (3)
enlarge - 0.09% (3)
kernel - 0.09% (3)
core - 0.09% (3)
9pm: - 0.09% (3)
explained - 0.09% (3)
haiku, - 0.09% (3)
contribution - 0.09% (3)
reading - 0.09% (3)
patches - 0.09% (3)
very - 0.09% (3)
url - 0.09% (3)
import - 0.09% (3)
connect - 0.09% (3)
(thank - 0.09% (3)
hand - 0.09% (3)
single - 0.09% (3)
change - 0.09% (3)
after - 0.09% (3)
following - 0.09% (3)
practices - 0.09% (3)
users - 0.09% (3)
good - 0.09% (3)
freebsd, - 0.09% (3)
thanks - 0.09% (3)
unicode - 0.09% (3)
added - 0.09% (3)
exercises - 0.09% (3)
attribution - 0.09% (3)
parse - 0.09% (3)
presented - 0.09% (3)
bring - 0.09% (3)
without - 0.09% (3)
building - 0.09% (3)
— - 0.09% (3)
them - 0.09% (3)
has - 0.09% (3)
relationship - 0.09% (3)
posts - 0.09% (3)
phd, - 0.09% (3)
dissertation, - 0.09% (3)
outlier - 0.09% (3)
start - 0.09% (3)
notice - 0.09% (3)
refer - 0.09% (3)
while - 0.09% (3)
seems - 0.09% (3)
it’s - 0.09% (3)
quite - 0.09% (3)
statistical - 0.09% (3)
results - 0.09% (3)
adding - 0.09% (3)
does - 0.09% (3)
introductory - 0.09% (3)
organization - 0.09% (3)
--> - 0.09% (3)
developers - 0.09% (3)
attribute - 0.09% (3)
requests - 0.09% (3)
estimate - 0.09% (3)
considered - 0.09% (3)
possible - 0.09% (3)
format - 0.09% (3)
7pm - 0.09% (3)
issue - 0.09% (3)
ways - 0.09% (3)
projects, - 0.09% (3)
enough - 0.09% (3)
last - 0.06% (2)
pass - 0.06% (2)
copy - 0.06% (2)
maintain - 0.06% (2)
few - 0.06% (2)
essays - 0.06% (2)
faced - 0.06% (2)
addition - 0.06% (2)
plotted - 0.06% (2)
familiar - 0.06% (2)
documented - 0.06% (2)
web - 0.06% (2)
they - 0.06% (2)
simple - 0.06% (2)
framework - 0.06% (2)
aspect - 0.06% (2)
never - 0.06% (2)
me, - 0.06% (2)
sqlalchemy - 0.06% (2)
it, - 0.06% (2)
openid - 0.06% (2)
piracy - 0.06% (2)
boring - 0.06% (2)
opensource - 0.06% (2)
market - 0.06% (2)
java - 0.06% (2)
it? - 0.06% (2)
python, - 0.06% (2)
logic - 0.06% (2)
quality - 0.06% (2)
conference, - 0.06% (2)
test - 0.06% (2)
researchers - 0.06% (2)
quantitative - 0.06% (2)
focus - 0.06% (2)
control - 0.06% (2)
allow - 0.06% (2)
thought - 0.06% (2)
account - 0.06% (2)
feedback - 0.06% (2)
discussion - 0.06% (2)
gather - 0.06% (2)
changed - 0.06% (2)
suggested - 0.06% (2)
removed - 0.06% (2)
measured - 0.06% (2)
productivity - 0.06% (2)
issues - 0.06% (2)
validity - 0.06% (2)
theories. - 0.06% (2)
did - 0.06% (2)
dependencies - 0.06% (2)
understand - 0.06% (2)
only - 0.06% (2)
training - 0.06% (2)
attendees - 0.06% (2)
continue - 0.06% (2)
best - 0.06% (2)
introducing - 0.06% (2)
generalize - 0.06% (2)
help - 0.06% (2)
found - 0.06% (2)
richness - 0.06% (2)
law - 0.06% (2)
brook’s - 0.06% (2)
software - 0.06% (2)
phenomenon - 0.06% (2)
tell - 0.06% (2)
conference. - 0.06% (2)
improve - 0.06% (2)
balancing - 0.06% (2)
alrawda - 0.06% (2)
around - 0.06% (2)
popped - 0.06% (2)
thirty - 0.06% (2)
trying - 0.06% (2)
keep - 0.06% (2)
between - 0.06% (2)
… - 0.06% (2)
statistics - 0.06% (2)
write - 0.06% (2)
activity - 0.06% (2)
240 - 0.06% (2)
whole - 0.06% (2)
terms - 0.06% (2)
associated - 0.06% (2)
suggests - 0.06% (2)
russell - 0.06% (2)
days - 0.06% (2)
pony!” - 0.06% (2)
cook’s - 0.06% (2)
can’t - 0.06% (2)
noticed - 0.06% (2)
looked - 0.06% (2)
sorted - 0.06% (2)
mailing - 0.06% (2)
values - 0.06% (2)
project, - 0.06% (2)
learn - 0.06% (2)
hands - 0.06% (2)
makes - 0.06% (2)
feature. - 0.06% (2)
yet - 0.06% (2)
increased - 0.06% (2)
members - 0.06% (2)
causation - 0.06% (2)
whether - 0.06% (2)
accept - 0.06% (2)
relate - 0.06% (2)
well, - 0.06% (2)
put - 0.06% (2)
things - 0.06% (2)
explanations - 0.06% (2)
want - 0.06% (2)
refuse - 0.06% (2)
believe - 0.06% (2)
because - 0.06% (2)
those - 0.06% (2)
reverse - 0.06% (2)
observing - 0.06% (2)
effect - 0.06% (2)
please - 0.06% (2)
same - 0.06% (2)
this, - 0.06% (2)
already - 0.06% (2)
image - 0.06% (2)
since - 0.06% (2)
took - 0.06% (2)
mention - 0.06% (2)
included - 0.06% (2)
numbers - 0.06% (2)
corner - 0.06% (2)
perform - 0.06% (2)
content - 0.06% (2)
managed - 0.06% (2)
2007 - 0.06% (2)
2009. - 0.06% (2)
further - 0.06% (2)
before - 0.06% (2)
contributions - 0.06% (2)
information - 0.06% (2)
tracker - 0.06% (2)
difficult - 0.06% (2)
bartvde - 0.06% (2)
hopfgartner - 0.06% (2)
be. - 0.06% (2)
modularity, - 0.06% (2)
readings - 0.06% (2)
projects. - 0.06% (2)
run - 0.06% (2)
getting - 0.06% (2)
projects? - 0.06% (2)
surprising - 0.06% (2)
(thanks - 0.06% (2)
attributions - 0.06% (2)
svn - 0.06% (2)
having - 0.06% (2)
obvious - 0.06% (2)
asked - 0.06% (2)
odd - 0.06% (2)
anonymous - 0.06% (2)
djangocon - 0.06% (2)
identifying - 0.06% (2)
graduate - 0.06% (2)
work, - 0.06% (2)
repositories - 0.06% (2)
connection - 0.06% (2)
internet - 0.06% (2)
being - 0.06% (2)
installed - 0.06% (2)
python: - 0.06% (2)
contributor. - 0.06% (2)
instructions - 0.06% (2)
installation - 0.06% (2)
download - 0.06% (2)
wrote - 0.06% (2)
love - 0.06% (2)
pseudo-names - 0.06% (2)
previous - 0.06% (2)
however - 0.06% (2)
always - 0.06% (2)
sun - 0.06% (2)
of the - 0.83% (28)
in the - 0.5% (17)
at the - 0.44% (15)
number of - 0.32% (11)
by: up - 0.29% (10)
posted by: - 0.29% (10)
comments | - 0.29% (10)
the django - 0.27% (9)
floss project - 0.27% (9)
pingbacks | - 0.27% (9)
to the - 0.27% (9)
on the - 0.27% (9)
floss projects - 0.24% (8)
that the - 0.21% (7)
one of - 0.21% (7)
will be - 0.21% (7)
that i - 0.21% (7)
to identify - 0.18% (6)
0 comments - 0.18% (6)
i have - 0.18% (6)
the project - 0.18% (6)
some of - 0.18% (6)
code base - 0.18% (6)
to get - 0.18% (6)
increase in - 0.18% (6)
an increase - 0.15% (5)
here is - 0.15% (5)
have a - 0.15% (5)
as the - 0.15% (5)
the number - 0.15% (5)
with the - 0.15% (5)
with a - 0.15% (5)
great is - 0.15% (5)
able to - 0.15% (5)
which i - 0.15% (5)
can be - 0.15% (5)
that a - 0.15% (5)
to introduce - 0.15% (5)
how great - 0.15% (5)
0 pingbacks - 0.12% (4)
new contributors - 0.12% (4)
are not - 0.12% (4)
is django's - 0.12% (4)
actively developed - 0.12% (4)
who are - 0.12% (4)
django pony - 0.12% (4)
the mythical - 0.12% (4)
i could - 0.12% (4)
of modules - 0.12% (4)
these project - 0.12% (4)
this session - 0.12% (4)
of this - 0.12% (4)
any of - 0.12% (4)
the goal - 0.12% (4)
documentation? by - 0.12% (4)
django's documentation? - 0.12% (4)
in kuwait - 0.12% (4)
is the - 0.12% (4)
at least - 0.12% (4)
2 pingbacks - 0.09% (3)
seems to - 0.09% (3)
introduction to - 0.09% (3)
9pm: an - 0.09% (3)
projects i - 0.09% (3)
generalizable theories - 0.09% (3)
to build - 0.09% (3)
from the - 0.09% (3)
7pm — - 0.09% (3)
many of - 0.09% (3)
of you - 0.09% (3)
for new - 0.09% (3)
feature requests - 0.09% (3)
out there - 0.09% (3)
developed floss - 0.09% (3)
was to - 0.09% (3)
as part - 0.09% (3)
the floss - 0.09% (3)
analyzing the - 0.09% (3)
the code - 0.09% (3)
there is - 0.09% (3)
this i - 0.09% (3)
you can - 0.09% (3)
an outlier - 0.09% (3)
might have - 0.09% (3)
| django, - 0.09% (3)
goal of - 0.09% (3)
| floss, - 0.09% (3)
the log - 0.09% (3)
the top - 0.09% (3)
click to - 0.09% (3)
part of - 0.09% (3)
might be - 0.09% (3)
log messages. - 0.09% (3)
a single - 0.09% (3)
programming language - 0.09% (3)
through the - 0.09% (3)
you might - 0.09% (3)
source code - 0.09% (3)
django pony, - 0.09% (3)
the following - 0.09% (3)
is needed - 0.09% (3)
a blessing? - 0.09% (3)
of choice - 0.09% (3)
go through - 0.09% (3)
of new - 0.09% (3)
we will - 0.09% (3)
to enlarge - 0.09% (3)
session is - 0.09% (3)
freebsd, haiku, - 0.09% (3)
the core - 0.09% (3)
a number - 0.09% (3)
modularity of - 0.09% (3)
floss projects, - 0.09% (3)
of freebsd, - 0.06% (2)
ticket number - 0.06% (2)
and openoffice.org - 0.06% (2)
of these - 0.06% (2)
commit log - 0.06% (2)
not be - 0.06% (2)
managed to - 0.06% (2)
for the - 0.06% (2)
haiku, and - 0.06% (2)
dissertation, i - 0.06% (2)
here are - 0.06% (2)
these projects? - 0.06% (2)
two thirty - 0.06% (2)
the linux - 0.06% (2)
and we - 0.06% (2)
faced by - 0.06% (2)
researchers i - 0.06% (2)
have met - 0.06% (2)
theories. i - 0.06% (2)
because the - 0.06% (2)
floss phenomenon - 0.06% (2)
i would - 0.06% (2)
it was - 0.06% (2)
enlarge image - 0.06% (2)
of source - 0.06% (2)
explain why - 0.06% (2)
organization of - 0.06% (2)
this graph - 0.06% (2)
that it - 0.06% (2)
the validity - 0.06% (2)
interesting to - 0.06% (2)
the conference, - 0.06% (2)
aspect of - 0.06% (2)
validity of - 0.06% (2)
as one - 0.06% (2)
to sloc - 0.06% (2)
i also - 0.06% (2)
difficult to - 0.06% (2)
documentation to - 0.06% (2)
this post - 0.06% (2)
cause of - 0.06% (2)
in many - 0.06% (2)
changed line - 0.06% (2)
made me - 0.06% (2)
to use - 0.06% (2)
then use - 0.06% (2)
quantitative methods - 0.06% (2)
of some - 0.06% (2)
of productivity - 0.06% (2)
of code - 0.06% (2)
on python - 0.06% (2)
i think - 0.06% (2)
for example - 0.06% (2)
way of - 0.06% (2)
in his - 0.06% (2)
explained that - 0.06% (2)
this was - 0.06% (2)
make the - 0.06% (2)
mailing list - 0.06% (2)
the feature - 0.06% (2)
can’t have - 0.06% (2)
a pony!” - 0.06% (2)
in which - 0.06% (2)
django, floss, - 0.06% (2)
my dissertation, - 0.06% (2)
i notice - 0.06% (2)
a code - 0.06% (2)
base and - 0.06% (2)
adding modules - 0.06% (2)
is associated - 0.06% (2)
with an - 0.06% (2)
the same - 0.06% (2)
he had - 0.06% (2)
your own - 0.06% (2)
module is - 0.06% (2)
familiar with - 0.06% (2)
introductory python - 0.06% (2)
programming sessions - 0.06% (2)
revision control - 0.06% (2)
the tool - 0.06% (2)
of exercises - 0.06% (2)
to show - 0.06% (2)
how useful - 0.06% (2)
best practices - 0.06% (2)
used to - 0.06% (2)
& installation - 0.06% (2)
exercises to - 0.06% (2)
in addition - 0.06% (2)
and how - 0.06% (2)
tool of - 0.06% (2)
choice for - 0.06% (2)
be introducing - 0.06% (2)
of how - 0.06% (2)
for download - 0.06% (2)
average size - 0.06% (2)
associated with - 0.06% (2)
parse the - 0.06% (2)
to know - 0.06% (2)
1 pingback - 0.06% (2)
floss, phd, - 0.06% (2)
terms of - 0.06% (2)
let me - 0.06% (2)
bring your - 0.06% (2)
this is - 0.06% (2)
d values - 0.06% (2)
4 comments - 0.06% (2)
by the - 0.06% (2)
need to - 0.06% (2)
svn log - 0.06% (2)
messages. i - 0.06% (2)
to other - 0.06% (2)
identifying contributors - 0.06% (2)
in floss - 0.06% (2)
external contributor - 0.06% (2)
addition to - 0.06% (2)
first time - 0.06% (2)
django … - 0.06% (2)
is quite - 0.06% (2)
that one - 0.06% (2)
does this - 0.06% (2)
such an - 0.06% (2)
that an - 0.06% (2)
the average - 0.06% (2)
size of - 0.06% (2)
a module - 0.06% (2)
a point - 0.06% (2)
the community - 0.06% (2)
to include - 0.06% (2)
how to - 0.06% (2)
blog | - 0.06% (2)
balancing act - 0.06% (2)
what we - 0.06% (2)
a django - 0.06% (2)
am just - 0.06% (2)
what it - 0.06% (2)
want to - 0.06% (2)
and don’t - 0.06% (2)
are already - 0.06% (2)
contributor analysis - 0.06% (2)
posted by: up - 0.29% (10)
| 0 comments - 0.18% (6)
0 comments | - 0.18% (6)
an increase in - 0.15% (5)
how great is - 0.15% (5)
the number of - 0.15% (5)
great is django's - 0.12% (4)
django's documentation? by - 0.12% (4)
is django's documentation? - 0.12% (4)
number of modules - 0.12% (4)
the mythical django - 0.12% (4)
| 0 pingbacks - 0.12% (4)
increase in the - 0.12% (4)
0 pingbacks | - 0.12% (4)
comments | 0 - 0.12% (4)
pingbacks | floss, - 0.09% (3)
of new contributor - 0.09% (3)
the projects i - 0.09% (3)
in the log - 0.09% (3)
seems to be - 0.09% (3)
django pony, a - 0.09% (3)
of this session - 0.09% (3)
pony, a blessing? - 0.09% (3)
goal of this - 0.09% (3)
2 pingbacks | - 0.09% (3)
comments | 2 - 0.09% (3)
mythical django pony, - 0.09% (3)
a number of - 0.09% (3)
2010 7pm — - 0.09% (3)
session is to - 0.09% (3)
is to introduce - 0.09% (3)
— 9pm: an - 0.09% (3)
9pm: an introduction - 0.09% (3)
of my dissertation - 0.06% (2)
looked at the - 0.06% (2)
django … an - 0.06% (2)
of freebsd, haiku, - 0.06% (2)
log messages. i - 0.06% (2)
modularity of freebsd, - 0.06% (2)
is the cause - 0.06% (2)
of the django - 0.06% (2)
as one of - 0.06% (2)
what it is - 0.06% (2)
part of the - 0.06% (2)
able to get - 0.06% (2)
to build generalizable - 0.06% (2)
python programming sessions - 0.06% (2)
this made me - 0.06% (2)
of some of - 0.06% (2)
that i have - 0.06% (2)
the validity of - 0.06% (2)
the log messages. - 0.06% (2)
up at two - 0.06% (2)
the source code - 0.06% (2)
had in his - 0.06% (2)
my dissertation, i - 0.06% (2)
can’t have a - 0.06% (2)
the core dev - 0.06% (2)
that one of - 0.06% (2)
in his hands - 0.06% (2)
what he had - 0.06% (2)
4 comments | - 0.06% (2)
with an increase - 0.06% (2)
for download & - 0.06% (2)
at least a - 0.06% (2)
go through a - 0.06% (2)
tool of choice - 0.06% (2)
the tool of - 0.06% (2)
pingbacks | django, - 0.06% (2)
code base and - 0.06% (2)
in the number - 0.06% (2)
contributors in floss - 0.06% (2)
programming sessions in - 0.06% (2)
interesting to know - 0.06% (2)
to enlarge image - 0.06% (2)
in terms of - 0.06% (2)
… an outlier - 0.06% (2)
you can’t have - 0.06% (2)
the django philosophy - 0.06% (2)
i am just - 0.06% (2)
of new contributors. - 0.06% (2)
module is a - 0.06% (2)
size of a - 0.06% (2)
in the average - 0.06% (2)
is associated with - 0.06% (2)
of a module - 0.06% (2)
the average size - 0.06% (2)
in floss projects - 0.06% (2)

Here you can find chart of all your popular one, two and three word phrases. Google and others search engines means your page is about words you use frequently.

Copyright © 2015-2016 hupso.pl. All rights reserved. FB | +G | Twitter

Hupso.pl jest serwisem internetowym, w którym jednym kliknieciem możesz szybko i łatwo sprawdź stronę www pod kątem SEO. Oferujemy darmowe pozycjonowanie stron internetowych oraz wycena domen i stron internetowych. Prowadzimy ranking polskich stron internetowych oraz ranking stron alexa.