Attempt at a real world benchmark
eacameron at gmail.com
Fri Dec 9 21:55:07 UTC 2016
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.
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 4:48 PM, George Colpitts <george.colpitts at gmail.com>
> 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 <amindfv at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 4:50 AM, Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs <
>> ghc-devs at 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.
>> ghc-devs mailing list
>> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ghc-devs