I understand what you're saying but in practice there is a big problem with user-driven bug reports: they don't happen.
So there's a gap there between your expectations of "only user sanctioned network usage" and developing a product that is better to use (for you!). Besides, does everyone share your expectations? I don't.
Your last paragraph goes off the rails quite a bit and is exactly the kind of thing that is counter productive IMO. Suddenly the Russians are involved when we're talking about logging some exceptions to Sentry? This is what makes people stop listening.
We need to find a balance between privacy and practicality if we want the general public to use more OSS, this absolutism is effectively gate keeping and makes me sad for the missed potential.
First, it is necessary to state my assumption, clearly. Especially when it seems it was at least partly false. Good faith means that you're interested in learning, not winning. But the remaining points show your motive is winning, not learning.
Second, you argue against the straw-man that I think everyone shares my expectations. I don't, and in my experience this is precisely the kind of mistake someone wanting badly to "win" makes.
Third, you attack me personally by characterizing one of my statements as "going off the rails", and follow that up with your own statement that assumes you know what "people" will and will not listen to. Again, it's the rhetorical baggage of the sophist, not the reasoned debate I would prefer.
Go ahead and keep arguing that passive phone-home behavior in FOSS is fine and that arguing against it is actually harming the public in general, and their privacy in particular. I think it's a ridiculous argument on its face and I don't think the person making it is making it in good faith, so I am not going to discuss it further with you.
Your "good faith" statement only exists to elevate yourself, it adds nothing to the discussion, neither does the rest of this personal attack.
Stating someone's argument is "ridiculous on its face" shows that you're actually not trying for reasoned debate, you clearly haven't even given the point made a single thought. This is very much my point: it's absolutism that leads to aggressive lines of argument and yes, I believe this is harmful to the general public.
If YOU don't want it, you can turn it off. That's the beauty of open-source. You are clearly trying to argue that they should not include any sort of telemetry - that everyone shares your expectations.
Stating this is not necessary.
---
I understand what you're saying but in practice there is a big problem with user-driven bug reports: they don't happen.
So there's a gap there between your expectations of "only user sanctioned network usage" and developing a product that is better to use (for you!). Besides, does everyone share your expectations? I don't.
Your last paragraph goes off the rails quite a bit and is exactly the kind of thing that is counter productive IMO. Suddenly the Russians are involved when we're talking about logging some exceptions to Sentry? This is what makes people stop listening.
We need to find a balance between privacy and practicality if we want the general public to use more OSS, this absolutism is effectively gate keeping and makes me sad for the missed potential.