2 ms·
"We feel like it’s a fair ask" - exactly - it's a fair ask, so the user should decide. Nobody can force you to change your mind, but if you don't, prepare for f
by viraptor 3y ago
"We feel like it’s a fair ask" - exactly - it's a fair ask, so the user should decide. Nobody can force you to change your mind, but if you don't, prepare for forks with the option disabled.
Also, the issue is not really about that - it's about the submitted data not being anonymised. That's the bare minimum you should be doing regardless of the information being opt-in/out.
- asadotzler 3y agoThe user can decide, by not using the software.
- calamari4065 3y agoThat's not a choice, that's an ultimatum.
- asadotzler 3y agoit's both. take it or fuck off. choice and ultimatum. your claim it's not a choice is clearly false.
- nusl 3y agoThe software should give you an immediate notice before you use it at all, then, and make you agree explicitly. That way they can say no. Otherwise you’re just abusive.
- viraptor 3y agoSure, but for opensource it also means the user can maintain a forked version. It's up to the project to decide if they prefer to fight over privacy, have a fractured community, and possibly custom patched packages in some distributions - or do they explicitly ask about telemetry instead. And in practice, do you gain enough from active collection to justify the fight? What about instead searching GitHub for digger being used in the public pipelines and building stats from that?