4 ms·

Telemetry can be implemented well. The software you use gets bugs fixed much faster since you get statistics that some bugs have higher impact than others. The

by nicce 1y ago

Telemetry can be implemented well. The software you use gets bugs fixed much faster since you get statistics that some bugs have higher impact than others. The more users software has, less skills they have in average to accurately report any issues.

inetknght 1y ago
> The software you use gets bugs fixed much faster since you get statistics that some bugs have higher impact than others. Try talking to your users instead. > The more users software has, less skills they have in average to accurately report any issues. No amount of telemetry will solve that.
- jodrellblank 1y ago
  The PowerShell team at Microsoft added opt-out telemetry to track when it was launched so they could make the case internally that they should get more funding, and have more internal clout. It’s easy to argue that if you are a PowerShell user or developer you benefit from no telemetry, but it’s hard to argue that you benefit from the tool you use being sidelined or defunded because corporate thinks nobody uses it. “Talk to your users” doesn’t solve this because there are millions of computers running scripts and no way to know who they are or contact them even if you could contact that many people, and they would not remember how often they launched it. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/module/microsoft.powershell.core/about/about_telemetry?view=powershell-7.5 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/module/microsof...
  - Eisenstein 1y ago
    To take that logic to its extreme: I'm sure we could have amazing medical breakthroughs if we just gave up that pesky 'don't experiment on non-consenting humans' hang-up we have.
    - jodrellblank 1y ago
      The parent said "talk to your users instead of telemetry" and I said "there are scenarios where telemetry can get information that you cannot get by talking to users". How did you go from that to "experimenting on non-consenting humans"? To take your logic to its extreme, you have a disease and are prescribed pills, and the pharmaceutical company says "we will track when you take the pills - unless you don't want us to?" and you would prefer the researchers get shut down for not knowing whether anyone actually takes the pills, and an unlimited number of people die from treatable diseases that don't get cured.
      - inetknght 1y ago
        > I don't understand how you got from "there are scenarios where telemetry can get information that you cannot get by talking to users, here is one example" to "experimenting on non-consenting humans". What is the connection? The connection is clear if your salary doesn't require you to not understand it. Developers don't opt-in to telemetry? Maybe it's because they don't want to enable that telemetry, your experiments be damned. Use proper engineering to demonstrate that your scripts work instead of demanding that users be your free software test team.
        jodrellblank 1y ago
        > "Use proper engineering to demonstrate that your scripts work instead of demanding that users be your free software test team." This telemetry is not about demonstrating that scripts work, as I have said to you multiple times.
      - Eisenstein 1y ago
        You said 'but we wouldn't have a lot of improvement without telemetry'. I am saying that we could have a lot of improvement in a lot of things if we wanted. We could have breakthroughs in medicine if we allowed human experimentation. The question is, where is that that line? Your argument doesn't address that, it just tries to justify something that people think it morally wrong by stating that we get use from it.
  - inetknght 1y ago
    > it’s hard to argue that you benefit from the tool you use being sidelined or defunded because corporate thinks nobody uses it. Let the corporation suffer then. With an open API, a third party will make a better one. Microsoft can buy that; corporations have a habit of doing that. > “Talk to your users” doesn’t solve this because there are millions of computers running scripts Why are you worried about the problems that scripts face? If the developer encounters issues in scripts, the developer can work to fix it. Sometimes that might mean filing a bug report... or a feature request for better documentation. Or the developer might get frustrated and use something better. Like bash. > there are millions of computers running scripts and no way to know who they are or contact them Why do they matter to you, or a corporation then? > they would not remember how often they launched it. If your users aren't interacting with you for feature requests and bug reports, then either you don't have users or you don't have good enough reachability from the users to you.
    - charcircuit 1y ago
      >Let the corporation suffer then. Corporations provide value to others. It's not just the corporation that is missing out.
      - bayindirh 1y ago
        Corporations provide value to their shareholders. The things they sell and their customers are the product. They care about neither.
    - jodrellblank 1y ago
      > "use something better. Like bash." Bash isn't better. > "Why are you worried about the problems that scripts face? Why do they matter to you?" because I write and run such scripts. > "Let the corporation suffer then" Microsoft wouldn't suffer, PowerShell users would suffer. > "sometimes that might mean filing a bug report... or a feature request for better documentation. " In this scenario the PowerShell team has been defunded or sacked. Who will the bug report go to? Who will implement the feature request? > "If your users aren't interacting with you for feature requests and bug reports, then either you don't have users or you don't have good enough reachability from the users to you." Users are interacting with Microsoft for feature requests and bug reports. There are a thousand open issues on https://github.com/powershell/powershell/ https://github.com/powershell/powershell/ and many more which were closed "due to inactivity". What difference does that make if Corporate doesn't want to fund a bigger team to fix more bugs unless it can be shown to benefit a lot of customers not just "a few" devs who raise issues?
  - bayindirh 1y ago
    This is a systemic problem on Microsoft's side, it's not an upside of telemetry. To be clear, I consent to send telemetry from some of the tools I use and deploy. Their common pattern? They wait a bit, and ask nicely about whether I want to participate. Also, the dialog box asking the question defaults to off. I read the fine print, look a the data they push, ponder and decide whether I'm cool with it or not. Give me choice, be upfront and transparent. Then we can have a conversation.

by nicce 1y ago

inetknght 1y ago

> The software you use gets bugs fixed much faster since you get statistics that some bugs have higher impact than others. Try talking to your users instead. > The more users software has, less skills they have in average to accurately report any issues. No amount of telemetry will solve that.

jodrellblank 1y ago
The PowerShell team at Microsoft added opt-out telemetry to track when it was launched so they could make the case internally that they should get more funding, and have more internal clout. It’s easy to argue that if you are a PowerShell user or developer you benefit from no telemetry, but it’s hard to argue that you benefit from the tool you use being sidelined or defunded because corporate thinks nobody uses it. “Talk to your users” doesn’t solve this because there are millions of computers running scripts and no way to know who they are or contact them even if you could contact that many people, and they would not remember how often they launched it. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/module/microsoft.powershell.core/about/about_telemetry?view=powershell-7.5 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/module/microsof...
- Eisenstein 1y ago
  To take that logic to its extreme: I'm sure we could have amazing medical breakthroughs if we just gave up that pesky 'don't experiment on non-consenting humans' hang-up we have.
  - jodrellblank 1y ago
    The parent said "talk to your users instead of telemetry" and I said "there are scenarios where telemetry can get information that you cannot get by talking to users". How did you go from that to "experimenting on non-consenting humans"? To take your logic to its extreme, you have a disease and are prescribed pills, and the pharmaceutical company says "we will track when you take the pills - unless you don't want us to?" and you would prefer the researchers get shut down for not knowing whether anyone actually takes the pills, and an unlimited number of people die from treatable diseases that don't get cured.
    - inetknght 1y ago
      > I don't understand how you got from "there are scenarios where telemetry can get information that you cannot get by talking to users, here is one example" to "experimenting on non-consenting humans". What is the connection? The connection is clear if your salary doesn't require you to not understand it. Developers don't opt-in to telemetry? Maybe it's because they don't want to enable that telemetry, your experiments be damned. Use proper engineering to demonstrate that your scripts work instead of demanding that users be your free software test team.
      - jodrellblank 1y ago
        > "Use proper engineering to demonstrate that your scripts work instead of demanding that users be your free software test team." This telemetry is not about demonstrating that scripts work, as I have said to you multiple times.
    - Eisenstein 1y ago
      You said 'but we wouldn't have a lot of improvement without telemetry'. I am saying that we could have a lot of improvement in a lot of things if we wanted. We could have breakthroughs in medicine if we allowed human experimentation. The question is, where is that that line? Your argument doesn't address that, it just tries to justify something that people think it morally wrong by stating that we get use from it.
- inetknght 1y ago
  > it’s hard to argue that you benefit from the tool you use being sidelined or defunded because corporate thinks nobody uses it. Let the corporation suffer then. With an open API, a third party will make a better one. Microsoft can buy that; corporations have a habit of doing that. > “Talk to your users” doesn’t solve this because there are millions of computers running scripts Why are you worried about the problems that scripts face? If the developer encounters issues in scripts, the developer can work to fix it. Sometimes that might mean filing a bug report... or a feature request for better documentation. Or the developer might get frustrated and use something better. Like bash. > there are millions of computers running scripts and no way to know who they are or contact them Why do they matter to you, or a corporation then? > they would not remember how often they launched it. If your users aren't interacting with you for feature requests and bug reports, then either you don't have users or you don't have good enough reachability from the users to you.
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    >Let the corporation suffer then. Corporations provide value to others. It's not just the corporation that is missing out.
    - bayindirh 1y ago
      Corporations provide value to their shareholders. The things they sell and their customers are the product. They care about neither.
  - jodrellblank 1y ago
    > "use something better. Like bash." Bash isn't better. > "Why are you worried about the problems that scripts face? Why do they matter to you?" because I write and run such scripts. > "Let the corporation suffer then" Microsoft wouldn't suffer, PowerShell users would suffer. > "sometimes that might mean filing a bug report... or a feature request for better documentation. " In this scenario the PowerShell team has been defunded or sacked. Who will the bug report go to? Who will implement the feature request? > "If your users aren't interacting with you for feature requests and bug reports, then either you don't have users or you don't have good enough reachability from the users to you." Users are interacting with Microsoft for feature requests and bug reports. There are a thousand open issues on https://github.com/powershell/powershell/ https://github.com/powershell/powershell/ and many more which were closed "due to inactivity". What difference does that make if Corporate doesn't want to fund a bigger team to fix more bugs unless it can be shown to benefit a lot of customers not just "a few" devs who raise issues?
- bayindirh 1y ago
  This is a systemic problem on Microsoft's side, it's not an upside of telemetry. To be clear, I consent to send telemetry from some of the tools I use and deploy. Their common pattern? They wait a bit, and ask nicely about whether I want to participate. Also, the dialog box asking the question defaults to off. I read the fine print, look a the data they push, ponder and decide whether I'm cool with it or not. Give me choice, be upfront and transparent. Then we can have a conversation.