> Somehow the industry got by for decades without intimately knowing what version every single user of the software was running

This is the same argument that was used about seatbelts and the internet. You might have survived without it before, but that doesn't mean it isn't going to be better with it in the future.

Seatbelts are a pretty thoroughly disingenuous argument here. No one is going to die because a company making a DAW doesn't know how many people are using what versions.

So far no one in the many replies to my post have given even a single reason why the world is substantially better with data collection on versions. The argument is either this kind of attempt to substitute an Obvious Good Thing and then not explain how this thing is like that, or that "it's just a harmless bit of data collection, as a treat."

I think data collection should probably be held to a higher standard than that. Come up with why it makes my life better first, then pitch me on it. Otherwise you're just pissing in cornflakes and calling it breakfast.

> Somehow the industry got by for decades without intimately knowing what version every single user of the software was running.

I guess this changed long before Audacity. Today many programs, including open source tools, bundle some sort of telemetry.

I think that instead of opposing Audacity we should talk about other projects in similar situation; we should treat them the same and think about a more general solution. There are already discussions like this, e.g.: https://consoledonottrack.com .

In our current societies, this is how you push for a more general solution:

Claw back the privacy on high-profile applications, get an amount of attention that’s significant enough to either lead the application to change or for the other fork to become the go-to. This reminds other companies that people do care and that the cost of tracking is in taking privacy from users who then leave when they can.

I value privacy but version numbers seems like an odd place to make that stand since it’s one of the least unique bits of information, especially in this century where automatic updates are increasingly the norm.

Cars were doing fine before Euro NCAP and similar safety standards. Gaining knowledge about how your product is used is not inherently bad.

Luckily if this bothers you then OSS works as intended, everyone can be happy.

> Anyways, how is it "petty" to make a version of the software for which there is clear demand?

I don’t think it’s clear that there is any demand for a version that doesn’t collect crash reports or version usage. The outrage was about the vagus clause about information necessary for law enforcement or similar.

I’m perfectly happy to see that code (if it exists) being thrown out, but to remove user confirmed crash reporting?

I’d expect every app I use, OSS or not, to have automated crash reporting (a confirmation dialog is a nice touch) and version usage tracking. It’s possible to maintain software without it, just like it’s possible to maintain software without other feedback like a bug reporting system or a profiler.

The clause is there because of the data collection, not independent of it. As people have been so quick to point out: "you will find this clause in everything that collects data as standard boilerplate."

If it weren't collecting version info what possible reason could it have to have a clause in the EULA about giving info to the police? You have to be phoning home for that to even mean anything.

I think he rather meant that it is petty that people make such a big fuss about it.

Despite leading the second paragraph in a way that suggests it's absurd to even ask, no reason was actually given. Why is version checking bad?

This is just backwards. Why is it good?

I can see why the developer wants it, but a person wanting something is not inherent evidence of it being "good". I want lots of things that are bad for me, and even some things that are bad for other people.

Here's the thing: In order to track version numbers, this developer now subjects its users to potential police surveillance. Even if that surveillance is "harmless" on its own, they have still made that bargain. And I feel like we're well past the point of credibly taking any given individual act of surveillance as being isolated and unentwined with more problematic kinds.

Is that bargain really worth it?

> Somehow the industry got by for decades without intimately knowing what version every single user of the software was running.

I don't think the scale nor the features of modern software is comparable to what we used to have.

Back in the days you didn't have such a diverse numbers of versions/machines combinations, software were much simpler, much less updates, &c.

We also survived just fine without cars, electricity, central heating, processed meat, &c. this isn't a valid argument