3 ms·
> The meta-problem here is that the bar is unreasonably higher for free software than proprietary. No. The standard is extremely simple, and for-profit compani
by tomrod 2y ago
> The meta-problem here is that the bar is unreasonably higher for free software than proprietary.
No. The standard is extremely simple, and for-profit companies deviate from it because there is no regulation guarding privacy sufficiently. No opt-out telemetry, ever. Opt-in telemetry is fine.
As a statistician, I get it. You want unbiased samples which an opt-out option helps to get to versus opt-in. But privacy has been violated too many times for people to be okay with opt-out telemetry.
The bar appears higher for FOSS because you can see the telemetry code directly. Just because for-profit companies are failing the bar doesn't mean FOSS should too.
- ranger_danger 2y agoIf you can see the code directly in FOSS then why is opt-out still treated as radioactive? You could also argue that opt-in telemetry still collects too much information, or programs might lie about not sending data in the first place.
- dogleash 2y agoAn expert in the field can conduct an investigation into what is happening behind their back without also specializing in reverse engineering? That's supposed to be an improvement that makes it Kosher? Really?
- tomrod 2y agoLying about opt-out versus opt-in ought to be legally actionable. I'm not sure your point depends on that, but wanted to call it out. Opt-in telemetry may well collect too much information _for a customer to be comfortable to use the feature_. However, it's an _option_ to an user instead of a _default_ for the user. Hence the categorical difference. Some FOSS make opt-out inclusion a required feature. Forking a complex project isn't a reasonable approach in many situations.