I'd imagine that "opt-in" could even mean you have to install a separate program/package to send data that's been collected. If it were very separate from the compiler itself, would these security concerns still be a problem? I for one would go through the effort of opting in since I want the ecosystem to improve and I have the luxury not to be dealing with high-security code bases. ᐧ
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 4:48 PM, George Colpitts <george.colpi...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would opt-in. I also agree with Simon that privacy is no longer a big > deal although I do believe that most companies do telemetry with an opt in > policy. If it's opt-in why would anyone have a problem with telemetry? > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:46 PM Tom Murphy <amin...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 4:50 AM, Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs < >> ghc-devs@haskell.org> wrote: >> >> I have wanted telemetry for years. ("Telemetry" is the term Microsoft, >> and I think others, use for the phone-home feature.) >> >> It would tell us how many people are using GHC; currently I have >> literally no idea. >> >> >> In practice I think the best data we could get is "how many people are >> using GHC && are willing to opt into phone-home," which seems like a >> rougher number than e.g. downloads of ghc/HP or number of downloads of >> base/containers or something similar. I also would not opt in. >> >> Tom >> _______________________________________________ >> ghc-devs mailing list >> ghc-devs@haskell.org >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >> > > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs