I know people like you. Because you can't see any reasons, there must be no reasons.

Meanwhile "little more than a file server" shows you have no concept of the problem in the first place.

Yet you will go on beleiving you're smarter than the actual people who build the system.

Several phrases yet zero actual counter-arguments.

Everyone from 6 years old and above can swoop in and insult. Maybe you were lost on your way to Reddit?

How about calling it nothing more than a file server is also just a Reddit style insult.

If you think a package manager is nothing more than a file server, I'd suggest you learn more about what a package manger does or just go live in Reddit land with all of the other willfully ignorant types. It is not for us to convince you otherwise. It's such lame comparison that even searching for "file server vs package manager" doesn't even autofill because nobody searches for it because probably nobody would ever even sanely think to make the comparison.

> something that's little more than a file server

You're doing an awful disservice to Homebrew.

I am, yes, and sorry about it.

I don't like telemetry at all and I believe we have to find other ways to do QA. Hence my strong reaction.

Have you looked at the analytics yet? Or are you only speaking from ideological priors?

The most valuable one I’d guess is package install error rates. Seems pretty useful to me.

Homebrew is a package manager with thousands of packages, not a file server. We maintain those packages, and knowing when they break (or can be deprecated due to lack of use) is critical to the project's sustenance.

And with packages that compile.

Which the software that I used to be employed maintaining has actually broken homebrew compiles when they've been installed at the same time (which I think I made better but I never got the PM who actually owned the product to spend the resources to properly fix).

A good example of how the configuration in the end user environment can affect package installation.

Okay, fair enough. But the breakage can't be detected without telemetry then, I take it?

If so, that's... not ideal for sure.

Homebrew can detect a lot of things during normal maintenance work: there are extensive tests and checks during compilation and bottle building, for example.

However, we can't catch everything: Homebrew has millions of users, and those users have all kinds of different setups. We can't predict every possible host and software interaction; basic failure analytics help bridge the gap there.

Okay, I'm sold, and I'm sorry for being blunt.

Where can I learn more? Can you point me at the right place in the source?

I'll not be banning Homebrew telemetry.

I understand the desire for privacy, and the seriousness that comes with it!

I've linked Homebrew's analytics data and the source code that collects it elsewhere in this thread.

And, to be absolutely clear: it is perfectly fine for you to disable Homebrew's analytics. There are an infinite number of legitimate reasons for doing so, including the most basic one of "I just don't want to." My sole goal is to dispel the small number of inaccurate beliefs about what Homebrew collects, why we collect it, etc.

Thank you for engaging. <3