4 ms·
If it is clearly documented that should be it. Maybe a blurb on the main page about it would be nice but not necessary.
by sigzero 9y ago
If it is clearly documented that should be it. Maybe a blurb on the main page about it would be nice but not necessary.
- ysavir 9y agoAny opt-out features should be disclosed to the user on install. That seems fairly straight forward to me.
- mynameisvlad 9y agoWhich, as someone pointed out in a separate comment thread here, Homebrew is already doing. I'm not sure what else you want from them, they seem to be following best practices here.
- falcolas 9y agoExisting installs were not prompted. You had to catch it in the patch notes, IIRC.
- mikemcquaid 9y agoNot prompted but were notified.
- bobwaycott 9y agoThe notification when it first came out wasn’t really noticeable for a tool that frequently has a lot of output an average user running `brew upgrade` would be used to ignoring. Prompting would have been the better choice. I didn’t notice until the change hit HN and created a bit of a shit storm. PS: Despite my feelings of disagreement on how brew handled this, I still appreciate your work.
- mikemcquaid 9y agoHomebrew literally never prompts for anything so a prompt would likely break many scripts.
- ysavir 9y agoYou are right. If I put more thought into my comment I would have urged them to prompt the user. But I rushed, and the post was invalid and senseless.
- daveFNbuck 9y agoI feel that if you're collecting data about me and sending it to a third party, there should at least be a clear notice during installation. It should really be opt-in, but at the very least it should be as obvious as they would make it if it were opt-in.
- mikemcquaid 9y agoThere is a clear notice during installation.