FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-25-2011, 02:48 PM
Fabian Groffen
 
Default Gentoostats, SoC 2011

On 25-08-2011 22:15:22 +0800, Patrick Nagel wrote:
> The prompt should offer three options:
>
> [s]end the data directly
> s[h]ow me the data*
> s[k]ip
>
> You can disable this prompt by having either 'SEND_STATS="yes"' (to always
> send) or 'SEND_STATS="no" (to never send) in your /etc/make.conf.
>
> *) And in the next step, after showing the data set(s): Send? [y/n]
>
> (why do all those words have to start with an 's'??)

send
display/view
later



--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
 
Old 08-25-2011, 02:49 PM
Rich Freeman
 
Default Gentoostats, SoC 2011

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> We did post to -dev, hence this thread.

My post was intended to be general in applicability, and not critical
of the particular instance of this issue being discussed.

I would generally suggest that implementing this as a package and not
as a function built-into portage would tend to make more sense to me
(do we really want portage to do EVERYTHING?). However, I don't think
that anybody needs anybody's blessing in particular to take one course
or the other there. And, in the Gentoo tradition of
everybody-does-whatever-they-want-to, there is nothing wrong with one
set of devs doing it one way and another set doing it another way so
that we end up with two data repositories with somewhat redundant data
so that we can start another discussion on -dev about what the
differences in the datasets mean. That is, until eventually devs get
bored and after enough bugs pile up one or both of the collection
mechanisms gets treecleaned. Then in five years somebody can build a
new one.

If I had strong concerns with anything that seemed likely to get
adopted I'd voice them.

Rich
 
Old 08-26-2011, 03:18 AM
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto"
 
Default Gentoostats, SoC 2011

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 25-08-2011 14:35, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 5:20 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
<snip>
>> The big issue with opt-out is privacy law - especially in Europe
>> (that's leaving aside just being up-front with users). We'd end
>> up having to have EULAs or such and perhaps a number of other
>> legal controls, and I don't think that is a direction that we want
>> to go in. I'm just not seeing the upside - better to just figure
>> out good ways to use data that is easy and safe to obtain first.
>>
>> Earlier somebody suggested that this decision wasn't really in the
>> domain of the Council/Trustees. I'm not sure I agree here - any
>> kind of opt-out data collection is something that has potential
>> legal ramifications as well as huge reputation concerns for the
>> distro (the software is distributed from Foundation-owned hardware
>> utilizing a Foundation-owned domain name and the data goes back to
>> Foundation-owned hardware - I'm sure any lawyer could make a case
>> for this). Just because there isn't a policy written down
>> somewhere doesn't mean that we can't use common sense. Devs
>> certainly don't need to run everything past the Council, but if you
>> want to do something high-profile post it on -dev, and if there is
>> an uproar look for an official second opinion before doing it.
>
> We did post to -dev, hence this thread. The point is that we don't
> need any 'official opinion' to do anything; and I don't want to set
> that precedent. If you have specific concerns about actions we plan
> to take (which by the way, we are not planning an opt-out solution.
> If we plan to do an opt-out solution, we will again have a thread on
> -dev) then let us know. If you have specific legal concerns about
> the application, data retention, encryption, logs, backups, onerous
> european privacy laws, and other such questions you should raise
> those concerns now.

I've picked this message as I want to address one point in this thread
that was focused on this sub-thread.
I disagree with the idea that adding an application to the Gentoo tree
that collects data from users and sends it to a central (or distributed)
system is the same as adding any other application to the tree.
Having the ability to add ebuilds to the tree is part of what you gain
by getting gentoo-x86 access. Issues with significant users privacy
concerns and substantial changes like adding packages to the tree that
collect data from users and compile it, should not be at the discretion
of individual developers but be subject of global policies that should
take into account the legal ramifications (trustees) and reflect the
developers desire and goals (council).

- --
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOVxCXAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEP7KAQAJBwDHp4aS +5l8gahHUrsWYI
0gUpO+qtsFODsKToQa4ZZ9jTZhFvN0iscyApXvgO8FBOnPzFCM iq+LblI/j/cnFK
OwVYJ4/tvcc1C1fE1lQecd1kNVlnVLCEvR8NbeKA184ty4kS7cJy2FqAi WbzGGno
/zNsQI+iDUg6ZCamCz29EZ5FJgfUzXzG+Ipbh61T0c/Ukugq5xHA8c5zTzoRre2u
/fSRMM9qPakmgaHJoV8t+8B0ejJccW/+MquKIyFdDnUDvQH5U/RnXl3D5oe7+0vb
Eak3VB5iUrkZifqhpOQMEeAtuNColigPy4oPr6BsQz7t0uiC2M 0MHei4cigbN8kn
yp4U+RZE4PhJ/+b/U/jnaiidGu8IF+Kdl3DPgCR130N4vbpO8u7KjyphdoL7QZx5
hnc3A5ZxQxraQolKtFnl8Be8P5NvuKdiP192wYmACuCw3W95XV NDtUhc63n++fqo
0K9WTEudO+JZN7JYZFSU6OJo5hvujHcQvvIO2sG30Q56x7EfvC RFCzMUsRC8mU0L
uSKW+YFHVp1+yCJ9BbnTWp9afPUVQ56/1YtCxLDsqEi0lI7otm0TpuJFIC/fDJ1F
Hf9Kqaap9kZzc1WBKuMY0Rvvf8CKf/9bd9QTxT5Fz/tpiNGkU9MTMFPHghDFUP8h
773YR/NFapQVLHyqemla
=G4Y6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 08-26-2011, 09:04 AM
Dale
 
Default Gentoostats, SoC 2011

Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:


I've picked this message as I want to address one point in this thread
that was focused on this sub-thread.
I disagree with the idea that adding an application to the Gentoo tree
that collects data from users and sends it to a central (or distributed)
system is the same as adding any other application to the tree.
Having the ability to add ebuilds to the tree is part of what you gain
by getting gentoo-x86 access. Issues with significant users privacy
concerns and substantial changes like adding packages to the tree that
collect data from users and compile it, should not be at the discretion
of individual developers but be subject of global policies that should
take into account the legal ramifications (trustees) and reflect the
developers desire and goals (council).

- --
Regards,


Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng



Just picking a message to reply to at random here. Sorry Jorge, I
thought common sense would kick in way before now.


As a user, if ANY distro starts collecting data about me without my
consent, I would be looking for something else to use. For people to
even think that users want someone snooping on them is rather presumptuous.


I have to also agree with the legal problems as well. Doing this
without the users consent is going to lead to a huge legal mess. It
would also taint Gentoo and Linux in general if this were to happen.
Anyone who thinks it won't needs to talk to a lawyer and some common
folks really soon.


As a user, if this was done without my consent, saying I would be pissed
would be to mild a term but one I am willing to use on a public forum.
As a example, I have DirecTv. It has no connection other than the
satellite cable. No telephone or anything. I don't want them snooping
on what I watch on TV either. I also don't care to have Gentoo
collecting data on what I use or other data either. If I wanted that, I
could just use M$ stuff. I would expect such things from them and the
huge EULA they have.


Back to my hole.

Dale

:-) :-)
 
Old 08-29-2011, 09:23 PM
Donnie Berkholz
 
Default Gentoostats, SoC 2011

On 03:18 Fri 26 Aug , Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> I've picked this message as I want to address one point in this thread
> that was focused on this sub-thread. I disagree with the idea that
> adding an application to the Gentoo tree that collects data from users
> and sends it to a central (or distributed) system is the same as
> adding any other application to the tree. Having the ability to add
> ebuilds to the tree is part of what you gain by getting gentoo-x86
> access. Issues with significant users privacy concerns and substantial
> changes like adding packages to the tree that collect data from users
> and compile it,

Like, oh, any package with a built-in bug reporting system?

--
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Council Member / Sr. Developer
Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.com
 
Old 08-30-2011, 01:53 AM
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto"
 
Default Gentoostats, SoC 2011

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 29-08-2011 21:23, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 03:18 Fri 26 Aug , Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>> I've picked this message as I want to address one point in this
>> thread that was focused on this sub-thread. I disagree with the
>> idea that adding an application to the Gentoo tree that collects
>> data from users and sends it to a central (or distributed) system
>> is the same as adding any other application to the tree. Having
>> the ability to add ebuilds to the tree is part of what you gain by
>> getting gentoo-x86 access. Issues with significant users privacy
>> concerns and substantial changes like adding packages to the tree
>> that collect data from users and compile it,
>
> Like, oh, any package with a built-in bug reporting system?

How many of those are part of the system set or get installed
automatically on one's system without any intervention? Furthermore, how
many of them are or will be programmed to send data automatically,
without prior action of the user and possibly without trace?
The point I was addressing is the suggestion that the above should be
possible and the idea that any single developer is "entitled" to do so.

- --
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOXEKXAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEP1ggP+gLBY9IiNj OaIxdQoJ1B/i2f
KEmvyTddr4Grxjo8ZME7mefIHi/8ethrWKBuCgf//XshpCQ2r+xKtEgluQf4fX+w
MAk9OePybbJJvIeATuoxb/nVYaihMZ7uuOtH5dqbDzhWMMsV0xkmTqgztrQM2v4X
jE4yT2hPYV4Ir9OUljzJ5LTBkcdgwDKIjxSn/lUjvCWhNGKr081h6437fOuIQDYE
kf+/nDU/UDngk7yKTH4Bgbd7pBNUe8Fu8HJ+7y8iwG0Y4mPW8VCFRHsBFT VNf2/p
haX68uC/jPAsWEPO3/YO5rs8JDHNXqL+8zXRPjZn/E0cUkT13+Fa79vKXI6wTPK4
fwF+WZdmAmP/zW5Gs7w82wbML0S0KhQzfVmLu+ne3NBxGhrtnpEzFq6BQgzCtl Nu
p8vQjtCEVSpeHkTMt0St9/3qPMXhVc1DCRllD2OrEbFil1keHLutDHzIFLVxUZuE
9Fv+esWuTI7yzJjErbvT2OGzbpZMvPuho90QthIbSap/fIf6vK/DOgN+2FcJy0/7
PDtIq8fRL2NF/CQOxjwfGwkpyUK3ZWk7QCBh65MA4PiZHG1eZf5enlvg+WuqYHc C
e14tvNVl0FeiW3lwCNy3/IOugSPpIatrbtHCImu0eaJ6oZqLP+OX6HZjpixJg2TP
JEnebRBgj6z6VdT774gg
=vmrl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 08-30-2011, 02:11 AM
Matt Turner
 
Default Gentoostats, SoC 2011

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
<jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote:
> The point I was addressing is the suggestion that the above should be
> possible and the idea that any single developer is "entitled" to do so.

It's a moot point, because no one (that I see) claimed or is claiming
to be entitled to that. In fact, Alec said

> We did post to -dev, hence this thread. The point is that we don't
> need any 'official opinion' to do anything; and I don't want to set
> that precedent. If you have specific concerns about actions we plan
> to take (which by the way, we are not planning an opt-out solution.
> If we plan to do an opt-out solution, we will again have a thread on
> -dev) then let us know

He's not saying that no official opinion would be needed if they were
doing an opt-out. He's saying that they don't need an official opinion
*since* they aren't doing some sort of opt-out system.

Not your fault, but this whole thread regarding the
merits/legality/privacy of opt-out is completely irrelevant to the
original topic.

Matt
 
Old 04-27-2012, 05:34 PM
Nikos Chantziaras
 
Default Gentoostats, SoC 2011

On 23/08/11 00:20, Vikraman wrote:

Hi all,

Gentoostats[0] is a GSoC 2011 project to collect package statistics from gentoo
machines. Please check it out. Bug reports and feature suggestions are welcome.

To submit your stats, use the app-portage/gentoostats ebuild from betagarden
overlay[1].

[0] https://soc.dev.gentoo.org/gentoostats/
[1] https://soc.dev.gentoo.org/gentoostats/about


Is this project dead now?
 
Old 04-27-2012, 06:42 PM
Alec Warner
 
Default Gentoostats, SoC 2011

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23/08/11 00:20, Vikraman wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Gentoostats[0] is a GSoC 2011 project to collect package statistics from
>> gentoo
>> machines. Please check it out. Bug reports and feature suggestions are
>> welcome.
>>
>> To submit your stats, use the app-portage/gentoostats ebuild from
>> betagarden
>> overlay[1].
>>
>> [0] https://soc.dev.gentoo.org/gentoostats/
>> [1] https://soc.dev.gentoo.org/gentoostats/about
>
>
> Is this project dead now?
>
>

A trivial look at the git repo would indicate no it is not dead.

-A
 
Old 04-28-2012, 07:28 PM
"G. Gaydarov"
 
Default Gentoostats, SoC 2011

On 04/27/2012 06:34 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 23/08/11 00:20, Vikraman wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Gentoostats[0] is a GSoC 2011 project to collect package statistics
>> from gentoo
>> machines. Please check it out. Bug reports and feature suggestions are
>> welcome.
>>
>> To submit your stats, use the app-portage/gentoostats ebuild from
>> betagarden
>> overlay[1].
>>
>> [0] https://soc.dev.gentoo.org/gentoostats/
>> [1] https://soc.dev.gentoo.org/gentoostats/about
>
> Is this project dead now?
>
>

Hi,

The project is not dead. As part of GSoC 2012 I will be working on
improving gentoostats. I'll post an official announcement here in the
very near future.

If you have any questions and/or ideas about the project please don't
hesitate to get in touch with me.

Regards,
G. Gaydarov
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:28 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org