I have no horse in this race, but wouldn't it be better to keep crash reports in there? Of course it should be disabled by default, and it would never be uploaded. That way individuals can raise issues and attach the crashreports if they need to.

I think the reaction is completely overblown, the telemetry and crash reporting are already opt-in. The auto-update-checker (opt-out) only reveals OS, as part of HTTP user-agent, and IP, as part of the TCP connection.

Yeah, an offline audio editing program should not phone home in any way without advance consent. The autoupdate check serves as telemetry.

Stop. Just stop. Software needs to reach out to the internet to provide some much-needed functionality such as auto-updating or crash reporting.

Branding any of this as telemetry then creating a bunch of immediately abandoned forks is a joke.

Before you say “well make this opt-in” - that doesn’t work for crash reporting nor does it really work for auto-updating.

Things change. The internet needs Javascript, distributing desktop apps using electron makes a lot of sense and developers need automated feedback. Please stop.

> Software needs to reach out to the internet...

No, you stop. It absolutely does NOT need this functionality. Is it nice? sure. But it should be opt in and prompted, not opt out and automatic.

> that doesn’t work for crash reporting

It does.

> nor does it really work for auto-updating.

Good.

> The internet needs Javascript

No it doesn't. The ad economy depends on it to bypass consent. Do not confuse that with the ad economy requiring it to function nor does it mean the internet requires it. Again, is it useful? of course, there are many instances where it can (keyword can) enhance the experience, but it is not necessary for 99% of applications (no, your infinite scroll SPA is not a necessary function). Is it necessary? Absolutely not.

> and developers need automated feedback

No they dont.

The only things you're referring to are necessary for are forcing things by your users without their knowledge or consent, and for superfluous flair and form. It's possible to build opt-in, privacy respecting, informed consent software diagnostics and telemetry without forcing this nonsense on them, especially with respect to the topic at hand, which is not a web application, but an offline native desktop application.

> > The internet needs Javascript

> No it doesn't.

Do you prefer the web from 1995? No youtube, no github, no google docs, no google maps, no real-time in-browser messengers/chats, no hangouts/google_meet/jitsi, etc. etc.?

You mistake everyone using javascript to do those things as the only way it's possible to do those things. That's certainly not true.

You can use HTML, Canvas, and CSS to do just about everything you mentioned.

Video is easy. In pure HTML: . No Javascript (or even CSS) required. You can certainly expand on that as well.

Google Maps does not require Javascript to provide it's core and common functionality either: https://appelsiini.net/2008/google-maps-without-javascript/ You would have to make some changes, but core functionality still exists.

Github does not require Javascript to function. You can toggle JS off and still use it pretty much as is, and the features that do break are trivial to implement without it.

Interactive realtime chat does not require javascript. https://github.com/kkuchta/css-only-chat , and the same principals can be applied to online docs and editors as well.

Javascript is the norm because it has inertia behind it - largely due to circumstance more than any inherent natural benefit, not because it has some secret sauce that the internet needs that couldn't be easily replaced should it be Thanos-meets-Tron-Crossover Snapped out of existence.

A much stronger argument in favor of Javascript would not be pointing to all the good things you can do with it, but rather, with how well and optimized and streamlined doing those things with Javascript is these days. Just to clarify, I'm not saying Javascript is the problem, but rather, the abuse of it, and that abuse would still be an issue if other technologies replaced it one day.

I use the internet with JS toggled off by default as a result of the rampant abuse of dark patterns (for example, the Google Search Suggested Alternatives box that is served below the sponsored result(s) that always "conveniently" expands after a short delay to push the first actual result down the page and replaces it with yet more sponsored content), 3rd party/cross site abuses (Malware), as well as the overabundance and omnipresent ad-spam. Sites that break as a result of my opt-in JS browsing is usually a sign it's not worth my time. Sometimes I'm proven wrong, but sites that can fallback gracefully and display some basic info without JS are usually the worst offenders..

TL;DR: Yes, in a way, I do prefer "the web from 1995", where Javascript isn't everywhere, and only present in places that I specifically whitelist, because it's all too often abused to negatively impact my experience instead of enriching it.