The Anaconda redesign has been on the works since Fedora 36, it's bound to come as the default for Fedora Workstation 39. Also, you couldn't be more wrong about the telemetry proposal even if you tried. The people that work at RedHat aren't this idea of the EvIL REd HaT HiGhER UpS that you have in your mind. They are contributors just like any other volunteer in the project.
joojmachine
joined 3 years ago
Your setup is already pretty good, but I can recommend Silverblue with my personal use.
and how exactly does having telemetry (that can be easily turned off at any time) impedes your freedom to be left alone?
It's not mistaken for context, you're just missing the point. The switch is just part of it, the user would still have to consent to send their data before it is sent and the proposal proposes to have it detailing the data that is going to be sent and explaining the process.
Having it as a default guarantees it doesn't scare non-power users away from it. It's not about just having people clicking next and accepting it without consent.
Highly disagree. Although I'm not content with RH's decisions during the last few months (especially when it comes to their layoffs), this one shouldn't even be a controversy at all. It's just a proposal for a community project. There will be no RedHat threats or higher-up decisions without the consent of the community. That's the main difference between Fedora (which does have deep ties with RedHat but is through and through a community project) and RedHat (the downstream entreprise).
And once again, it isn't "without consent", it just means that the default state of the checkbox is on. Users will still be presented with a confirm option before any data is sent.
In other words, unbiased telemetry is not possible to do ethically.
Say that to the opentelemetry and Plausible folks, who have been on the vanguard of doing exactly that for years now.
No, this is not "ruining your beautiful Fedora", this is a proposal that both us users and the developers can pitch in to develop telemtry in a way that does not abuse its users.
And about the opt-in/opt-out nature of it, feel free to join the follow-up discussion about it on the forum:
No need to apologize, I'm not mad at you, I found this thread while checking if someone had already posted it before doing so myself.
That's the worst part, to be honest, it's not even ragebait yet people just take everything at face value and start to spread FUD.
Right? People are reading this as BIG CORPO DOES BAD DECISION and ignore the fact that they can (and should) go to the forum to actively discuss the proposal with the people proposing it.
Please read the thing properly. It is nothing more than a proposal currently, which is being actively discussed with the community to make sure that users (including you) are satisfied with the result if it is implemented, or to make sure it is not implemented at all.
The problem with opt-in telemetry is that it messes with the scope of the research.
If you want to understand something about most users (and not just the ones that are active enough in the project to participate in opt-in) you need this, otherwise your results only tell the needs of this subset of your userbase and this sometimes can go completely against the needs of the majority of users.
The problem with telemetry isn't the telemetry itself, is how it is used, and the way the proposal is worded makes me very optimistic. They are trying 200% hard to make sure we understand that it will never be used in violation of the users' privacy.
Yeah, you can. I've been using this solution for a while now.