zlacker

>>segfau+(OP)
Why do people use obvious spyware when free software exists?

>>isatty+xi
Telemetry isn't the same thing as spying on the user. People use it because it's not actually spying on them.

>>charci+Zj
Anonymized or not, opt-out telemetry is plain spying. Go was about to find out, and they backed out the last millisecond and converted to opt-in, for example.

>>bayind+5n
Unfortunately opt-in telemetry is like no telemetry at all. Defaults matter.

>>nicce+Eq
No telemetry at all is a good thing to some (most?) people.

>>inetkn+Yq
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.

>>nicce+qs
> 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.

>>inetkn+3t
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/microsof...

>>jodrel+WP
> 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.

>>inetkn+A41
> "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/ 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?