Extreme as me? Because im not behind a (unasked) calling home telemetry?
I just don’t like that Topic and the whole conversation. Maybe its the other way around?
I didnt donated 175€ just to see few years later… A MDD Topic with:“Sorry but we need your Telemetry anyways.” 
For me it looks extreme to defend this and i think that @freggel.doe responsed to @romangg statement in the right way and called out what it is.
I think this is one of the highlights from the first MDD Topics:
Then, you didn’t follow the discussion very well.
If you truly have an interest in so-called fingerprinting and how it might apply to telemetry data collected by Manjaro through whatever mechanism may be used, an understanding of the types of data that are considered personal and those that are not is desirable.
A fair understanding of relevant facts might be gleaned from the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). There is a lot of information to process, and it’s definitely not for the faint-hearted.
Once you are conversant with that, even to a cursory level, you should begin to appreciate the differences in data types as they relate to personal and impersonal information.
Firstly, a few notes about GDPR data definitions;
Now, let’s talk about fingerprinting;
1. Does identifying a specific computer amount to fingerprinting, and does it violate the GDPR?
2. Are additional vectors needed to identify an individual or the geographical location of a computer?
Let’s follow this logically, shall we?
If you have personal information leakage through poor Social Media practices, for example, then you probably have bigger fish to fry.
Disclaimer:-
These are my personal opinions;
I do have others, but I refuse to share them in a public forum.
Arch’s only branch is stable. For that matter, it’s more “stable” than any of Manjaro’s.
Yeah, if by curated you mean they constantly screw up something in those few packages they maintain. Go check history posts and you’ll see plenty of problems that were caused by some packaging errors.
You probably won’t be able to check specific PKGBUILDs because they make last second builds on their computers without ever pushing anything to gitlab. I guess that’s why they need telemetry, because no one can double check and report on anything (well, on many things). 
In Arch testing repositories can be enabled, simply by uncommenting the repo name header and Include lines in /etc/pacman.conf file, which is a simlar concept like using branches in Manjaro.
This only can be deemed as hostile insinuation. For me - and I’m sure most of other users as well - the curation is a blessing. Period. When you don’t like the distro, you are free to seek the wide open and use another distro, nobody will miss your ranting.
While that is commendable. It doesn’t tell Manjaro anything about what sort of hardware the OS is being used on. As a consequence it is impossible for them to be proactive and ensure that, that hardware is supported.
I’ve already mentioned a potential issue with my partner’s 2 in 1 Starlite, which Manjaro advertises. what would be really nice is, that, that potential issue is dealt with before kernel 6.6 become EOL. The work around is not one I particularly like, and I should not have to do it. Now that issue might already be in hand, simply because Manjaro is advertising the Starlite, but moving into the future, knowing what hardware is in use WILL certainly assist their efforts to be proactive.
Telemetry in and of itself is benign, without it I could never have known in what way criminals were attempting to compromise the websites I developed, I could never have known in what way users were screwing things up, and I could never have known, what bugs required urgent attention, before they caused major issues for users.
…and before anyone tells me that telemtry was on the server. I potentially knew far more about the users simply from the meta data the Webbrowser sent. Additionally I had access to the database.
What do you even mean by that? In what capacity does Manjaro “proactively support hardware”? Are you suggesting that they’re developing kernel level hardware drivers now? From what I see, the best they can do is compile existing kernel modules based on the hardware detected. So is that what you mean? That they add specific hardware detection to mhwd?
Again. Proactive on what exactly? Who needs to be proactive in any kind of hardware support are the Linux kernel developers and hardware suppliers creating the drivers, not Manjaro.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? We’ve already covered how Manjaro will deal with the data.
Why is this thread even still active and continuing?
nearly 350 comments till now - new opinions keep coming, but no one cares to read through all of the thread.
This is unproductive BS
not just from here on in - but since a very long time ago
goes to you as well @SyMutex
Yes, but I might’ve missed the part where someone explained how the data adds to the ability to support certain hardware under Linux and consequently Manjaro. Please enlighten me with a quote?
Is that yes, you are being deliberately Obtuse? As for the info read the thread. it’s in there.
… I said I couldn’t find it. Please help me?
Well, well, well, how about that. Here’s one that you clearly ignored or didn’t bother to read.
I suggest you go back to the beggining, and start reading, rather than skimming.
you might also read this.
What Manjaro specifc hardware are we even talking about? Any hardware support gets added to the Linux kernel.
Look, I’m too old for this. So let’s wrap this up, shall we?
There is no rational argument to proclaim that telemetry in Manjaro will improve hardware support in any meaningful way. Which is an obvious conclusion to make, as hardware support comes from the Linux kernel. So can we please stop using this as an argument to gaslight people into accepting telemetry?
Thanks.
Yes it does. But someone has to write it, someone has to pass the information upstream, someone has to pass the information to a person who will make the decision that it’s important enough to write the software.
Also it isn’t just about hardware drivers, there is all sorts of other software that can come into play, nobody thinks of until the telemetry data is analysed.
None of this happens by magic.
As I’ve pointed out before. There is a potential issue facing the users of the Starlite 2 in 1. The problem may be a driver problem, that driver problem might be fixed in kernel 6.12, it might not (the problem certainly exists in 6.12 RC) but the problem might not actually be a driver problem, it might be a Wayland problem. Someone has to analyse some data from somewhere so they can push the information upstream, either to a driver developer (that might be at Starlabs) or to the DE people who are responsible for Wayland… in this case it might only be KWayland, so KDE.
Personally I would like that problem solved proactively from Telemetry data, than when kernel 6.6 reaches EOL, and I have to implement the workaround, and report back here that there’s an actual problem.
At the moment most issues people are having with their hardware, while running Manjaro, or any other Linux, are dealt with reactively, and the person using the hardware is often left unable to use their hardware the way they choose.
I’m sorry - why are you here?
You, Sir, are a filthy liar.
This thread has degraded to be completely unacceptable.
Some appear to be creating forum accounts just to throw in slander and gossip.
Others are throwing in GDPR without knowing about GDPR.
This thread appears to have fullfilled its purpose.
No, I’m not. Maybe things changed recently, although I doubt it, but in the past, and I’m not talking years, there were numerous occurrences when someone was asking about specific PKGBUILD but it was nowhere to be found because philm just built something and uploaded it.
You can search forum. I can give you one example of many: Where to find the `pkgbuild` script for `plasma-nm` 5.26.5-1.1 (updated today)?
Your initial statement made it seem like it’s happening all the time, while in reality it’s a (regrettable) exception, not the rule.
Your engagement in the thread here was not in good faith, and I hope a moderator takes notice.
Thanks everybody for voting and the important discussion. I was quite overwhelmed by all the feedback we received but I read everything.
I believe there is a lot of unfounded doubt and fear about what telemetry data we would collect and how that would impact users. For example some people think it might digitally fingerprint them individually as users, while this is not possible through the impersonal data we would collect. Other people just hear “telemetry” and by principle are against it, while it makes a big difference depending on what data is collected.
Still, I must accept that there is a lot of doubt and even trauma regarding any telemetry, and in this light the results of the poll are also conclusive. As so far I would aim for an opt-in solution for transferring additional hardware and environment data with MDD while only sending a counting request by default as we have done in the past with network manager.
To opt-in we need to add likely a checkbox in Calamares for new installs and in Manjaro settings manager for existing ones. Then we should also limit the transfer of the whole data after opt-in to once a month or so.
Because of the additional work needed I don’t expect MDD to have a final release anytime soon though. There needs to be also other work done server-side to make the data aggregation more robust. On the other side (and on a personal note) I’ll likely reduce my engagement in Manjaro from full-time to a side project, as the project seems less likely than ever to be in a place to make a living from it. So if at all and with all the additional work needed right now I might look into MDD again at some point next year or somebody else will take over.
Thanks again everybody for your fair criticism and your support.