Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org> writes: > Just to say: > > > · Telemetry is a good topic > > · It is clearly a delicate one as we’ve already seen from two widely > differing reactions. That’s why I have never seriously contemplated > doing anything about it. > > · I’m love a consensus to emerge on this, but I don’t have the > bandwidth to drive it. > > Incidentally, when I said “telemetry is common” I meant that almost > every piece of software I run on my PC these days automatically checks > for updates. It no longer even asks me if I want to do that.. it just > does it. That’s telemetry right there: the supplier knows how many > people are running each version of their software. > Does this necessarily count as telemetry? To be useful for statistics each installation would need to be uniquely identifiable; it's not clear to me for what fraction of software this holds. Certainly in the open-source world it's rather uncommon to tie telemetry to updates. I suppose in the Windows world this sort of thing may be more common.
I'll point out that in general telemetry isn't a terribly common thing to find in open-source software save a few major projects (e.g. Firefox, Debian's popcon). I think we would be the first widely-used compiler to use such technology which does give me pause. Developers in particular tend to be more sensitive to this sort of thing than your average user. Cheers, - Ben
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs