| |
| ▲ | inetknght 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > it’s hard to argue that you benefit from the tool you use being sidelined or defunded because corporate thinks nobody uses it. Let the corporation suffer then. With an open API, a third party will make a better one. Microsoft can buy that; corporations have a habit of doing that. > “Talk to your users” doesn’t solve this because there are millions of computers running scripts Why are you worried about the problems that scripts face? If the developer encounters issues in scripts, the developer can work to fix it. Sometimes that might mean filing a bug report... or a feature request for better documentation. Or the developer might get frustrated and use something better. Like bash. > there are millions of computers running scripts and no way to know who they are or contact them Why do they matter to you, or a corporation then? > they would not remember how often they launched it. If your users aren't interacting with you for feature requests and bug reports, then either you don't have users or you don't have good enough reachability from the users to you. | | |
| ▲ | jodrellblank 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > "use something better. Like bash." Bash isn't better. > "Why are you worried about the problems that scripts face? Why do they matter to you?" because I write and run such scripts. > "Let the corporation suffer then" Microsoft wouldn't suffer, PowerShell users would suffer. > "sometimes that might mean filing a bug report... or a feature request for better documentation. " In this scenario the PowerShell team has been defunded or sacked. Who will the bug report go to? Who will implement the feature request? > "If your users aren't interacting with you for feature requests and bug reports, then either you don't have users or you don't have good enough reachability from the users to you." Users are interacting with Microsoft for feature requests and bug reports. There are a thousand open issues on https://github.com/powershell/powershell/ and many more which were closed "due to inactivity". What difference does that make if Corporate doesn't want to fund a bigger team to fix more bugs unless it can be shown to benefit a lot of customers not just "a few" devs who raise issues? | | |
| ▲ | inetknght 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > Bash isn't better. It is, by virtue of running on Linux. > because I write and run such scripts. 'kay. Learn how to do Engineering and the software will come just fine. You don't need telemetry to tell you anything about scripts. You need good error reports for your users to send to you instead. > Microsoft wouldn't suffer, PowerShell users would suffer. So what you're saying is that Microsoft doesn't care about its users. PowerShell users should use products from better companies then. > In this scenario the PowerShell team has been defunded or sacked. Who will the bug report go to? Who will implement the feature request? Why were they sacked? Oh, right, because they didn't interact with their users. Who will the bug report go to? Clearly it's the same as before: nobody. That's a Microsoft problem. > What difference does that make if Corporate doesn't want to fund a bigger team to fix more bugs unless it can be shown to benefit a lot of customers not just "a few" devs who raise issues? If Corporate doesn't want to fund bugfixes and features for people who actually file bug reports and talk to you, then that's poor behavior of corporate. Why do you want to contribute to the decline of your users privacy? | | |
| ▲ | jodrellblank 5 days ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | inetknght 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > That's good, because if running on Linux is what it takes to make something good, PowerShell is good, and has been good since before you created your HN account. Is there even a single distribution of linux with PowerShell as the default shell? No, of course not, because PowerShell does not work on Linux. It does not work with coreutils, it does not work with bash, it does not work in any way that's useful to Linux. > This does not tell you the thing I said the telemetry was added for. Try again. Or don't but if you're going to, at least understand the claim and address it. If your servers don't have users, then why are they running scripts? Your servers have users. The users are you, the server admins, whoever's consuming the data being served by them. Your users need to tell you that something is wrong, voluntarily. If you are not getting reports from your users, then you are doing it wrong. > If you are forgetting the context of the chat, you can re-read it. 'kay. Neat. Nothing was forgotten. > That is not what I am saying. A team which is fighting to get more funding so it can address more issues is demonstrating that it does care about users. > I refer you back to my previous comment where I link to the Github where you can see they are interacting with their users, and wonder why you are immediately saying the opposite and thinking that will fly. It's because you're too stubborn to recognize that you're fighting for things that harm users. A team which is fighting to get more funding, and debases themselves to do it, is not a good team. A corporation which fosters that kind of thinking is a terrible corporation. Showing github issues and PRs and stuff? Cool, good interactions. Trying to justify telemetry by tying it to funding? No, not good. Get your github issues status to be tied to your funding instead. > Were you listening at all, or were you just waiting for a chance to tell everyone you don't know what people do with computers, haven't looked, don't care, but are certain all they need is Markdown and a terminal with a tiling window editor? I'm not sure what you're getting at. I suppose Markdown came about because it's extremely simple and great for inline code / readmes when contrasted with all of the bloat that comes with HTML, or contrasted with the binary blob that is PDF. It's great and there are plenty of people who don't use Markdown. How do I know? Because I talk to people. As for a terminal with a tiling window editor? There are plenty of people who don't use terminals, and plenty of people who do. Have you sat down and talked about how and why? Have you tried to actually have conversations with multiple other developers to understand their workflows? Because if not, then you're only guessing at why people use a given thing. Telemetry doesn't solve that at all. | | | |
| ▲ | bayindirh 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The problem is not the PowerShell itself, maybe even not the fact it has telemetry, but how it collects the telemetry and how Microsoft sees telemetry as the only and ultimate way to measure things. I understand that Microsoft believes in "show me numbers or GTFO", but the problem is they ignore Goodhart's law repeatedly, and they don't learn from their mistake. To recap; "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure". So, to keep the line go up, Microsoft's all tools are enshittifed over time, and this metric collection is marred by internal power struggles, confirmation bias, and representation inequality (when a company uses a feature in all their installations because it runs a script developed and distributed by a single engineer, their representation is amplified, for example). Do you remember how a single person gutted .NET Core to remove hot reload support because of a power struggle, despite the community and the numbers screamed the opposite? This is the Microsoft we know, and since we rank ourselves by our HN account creation dates, you know it way better than me. In many software communities, it's shown over and over again a distilled stream of human feedback is way better than playing the numbers game with some automated number collection and crunching, because it's way better filtered than some raw numbers. Another problem is Microsoft is not merging the numbers with actual feedback, and going for a hybrid approach either. They are not a company like this. They are not formed like this, and their DNA doesn't allow that. They may be able to do it top down maybe in a decade, but today they're not there yet. Their community response is just fronting the issue trackers and let some feedback trickle to keep the community happy. Yes, I don't believe in or trust Microsoft a bit to care about their users unless it affects their bottom line. Like it or not, regardless of Gates, Ballmer or Nadella; Microsoft has never changed at the core. It's a company based on IP, suppressive monopoly, and "win at all costs" mantra. So, at the end of the day, the numbers are not there to secure user happiness, or giving clout to the Powershell team. They unfortunately have to do it for job security, and to have some arm's length distance from the shredder. You today have PowerShell because, some big customers said they need it, team can show it's being used by some other minions, and maybe a couple of internal teams benefit from its existence. Don't get distracted. It's about money [0]. [0]: https://calebhearth.com/dont-get-distracted P.S.: ...and yes, Bash maybe a terse language, but it's better than PowerShell, a lot. | | |
| ▲ | jodrellblank 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Microsoft's software generally gets worse over time. Office 365 Desktop is borderline unusably slow to open. Windows Explorer is, too. Their support is awful. However, .NET gets faster. PowerShell gets faster. PowerShell has a JIT compiler these days for example. > "Another problem is Microsoft is not merging the numbers with actual feedback" That is a problem, I agree. > "So, at the end of the day, the numbers are not there to secure user happiness, or giving clout to the Powershell team." Members of the Powershell team are/were active on Reddit, Steve Lee the Software Engineering Manager for PowerShell commented[2] when telemetry was introduced: "Telemetry can help increase Microsoft investment in PowerShell. If the data shows increasing usage, we can justify increasing the size of the team. However, if the data shows the opposite, then we would need to justify our existence". Your claim that that is not the reason flies in the face of the people who put it there saying why they put it there. And the public RFC they did before adding it, linked in the comment. > "You today have PowerShell because, some big customers said they need it," We have PowerShell because Jeffrey Snover ported Linux/Unix tools to Windows, found they were no use, and designed a shell for Windows. Then argued Bill Gates into having an automation system that wasn't graphical to compete with Linux. Before it was PowerShell it was called Monad and Snover wrote a blog post about his design document[1] where he talks about the design being customer focused and the team getting feedback that they were then one of the most customer-focused teams. > "P.S.: ...and yes, Bash maybe a terse language, but it's better than PowerShell, a lot." As you can read in the Monad Manifesto linked in the blog post: "the traditional approach to composing solutions is difficult and fragile. It uses pipelines to perform prayer-based parsing of text streams. These mechanisms are awkward, inconsistent, and imprecise. Admins spend the majority of their thought process on mechanisms instead of problem solving.". Having the shell do argument parsing for all cmdlets makes the user experience more predictable and consistent, the tooling for completing parameters better and more consistent, and reduces the effort needed to develop scripts and cmdlets. Better. Everyone promptly moves from Bash to Python for scripting. PowerShell is a scripting language. Extensible syntax makes it usable in interactive shell and in code. Better. "Monad takes a different approach providing a rich set of management oriented services for developing management GUI tools. These services allow management GUIs to be layered on top of the scripting engine and Cmdlets. This provides auditing, macro record/playback and integrated GUI/command line tools" - Bash has nothing like this at all. Bash associative arrays are keyed by strings, PowerShell's can be keyed by different types because PowerShell uses .NET types. PowerShell can call almost any .NET code (C#'s standard library) and use the same object instances and call methods on them and the data is not serialised to text at any point. Bash cannot do this. PowerShell can import modules over its remoting system from a remote system, run the cmdlets locally, get serialised objects to the local machine, which can invoke methods on the remote machine. Bash cannot do this. Bash is not in the same league, not playing in the same game, much more narrowly scoped, and when it comes to language design it's not well designed. Both are full of warts and footguns, which is expected from a Microsoft tool but should not be the case for something which has been open source since 1989 in a world where its fans say open source means anyone can fork and improve stuff and stuff gets better over time. Given its much narrower scope and much wider fanbase, it should be trip-hazard free. Nobody should be moving to Python to make reliable small administration scripts, instead of everyone recommending that. [1] https://www.jsnover.com/blog/2011/10/01/monad-manifesto/ [2] https://old.reddit.com/r/PowerShell/comments/ohieet/anyone_k... |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | charcircuit 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | >Let the corporation suffer then. Corporations provide value to others. It's not just the corporation that is missing out. | | |
| ▲ | bayindirh 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Corporations provide value to their shareholders. The things they sell and their customers are the product. They care about neither. |
|
| |
| ▲ | bayindirh 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is a systemic problem on Microsoft's side, it's not an upside of telemetry. To be clear, I consent to send telemetry from some of the tools I use and deploy. Their common pattern? They wait a bit, and ask nicely about whether I want to participate. Also, the dialog box asking the question defaults to off. I read the fine print, look a the data they push, ponder and decide whether I'm cool with it or not. Give me choice, be upfront and transparent. Then we can have a conversation. | |
| ▲ | Eisenstein 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | To take that logic to its extreme: I'm sure we could have amazing medical breakthroughs if we just gave up that pesky 'don't experiment on non-consenting humans' hang-up we have. | | |
| ▲ | jodrellblank 5 days ago | parent [-] | | The parent said "talk to your users instead of telemetry" and I said "there are scenarios where telemetry can get information that you cannot get by talking to users". How did you go from that to "experimenting on non-consenting humans"? To take your logic to its extreme, you have a disease and are prescribed pills, and the pharmaceutical company says "we will track when you take the pills - unless you don't want us to?" and you would prefer the researchers get shut down for not knowing whether anyone actually takes the pills, and an unlimited number of people die from treatable diseases that don't get cured. | | |
| ▲ | bayindirh 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Medical research and consent doesn't work like this. If you track your patients without their consent, or you share their data without their explicit consent, you'll land in very hot water, which will cook you even before you can scream. Similarly, a medical trial will take a very detailed consent before you can start. Your opt-out telemetry is akin to your insurance sending you powered and Bluetooth enabled toothbrushes out of the blue to track you and threaten to cancel your insurance if you don't use that toothbrush and send data to them. Or as a more extreme example, going through an important procedure not with the known and proven method but with an experimental one, because you didn't opt-out and nobody bothered to tell you this. In reality, you need to sign consent and waiver forms to accept experimental methods. | | |
| ▲ | jodrellblank 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > "Medical research and consent doesn't work like this." Yes, I agree that person's comparison to non-consensual medical research is stupid. > "Your opt-out telemetry is akin to your insurance sending you powered and Bluetooth enabled toothbrushes out of the blue to track you and threaten to cancel your insurance if you don't use that toothbrush and send data to them." More akin to your insurance company making a public RFC where you can discuss the coming telemetry, then you choosing to ask your insurance for an optional toothbrush, being able to opt out of telemetry if you want to, the insurance company documenting how to opt out[1], you being able to edit the toothbrush source code to remove the telemetry entirely with the insurance company's approval because it's MIT licensed, and absolutely nothing happening to you if you opt out. |
| |
| ▲ | inetknght 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I don't understand how you got from "there are scenarios where telemetry can get information that you cannot get by talking to users, here is one example" to "experimenting on non-consenting humans". What is the connection? The connection is clear if your salary doesn't require you to not understand it. Developers don't opt-in to telemetry? Maybe it's because they don't want to enable that telemetry, your experiments be damned. Use proper engineering to demonstrate that your scripts work instead of demanding that users be your free software test team. | | |
| ▲ | jodrellblank 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > "Use proper engineering to demonstrate that your scripts work instead of demanding that users be your free software test team." This telemetry is not about demonstrating that scripts work, as I have said to you multiple times. |
| |
| ▲ | Eisenstein 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You said 'but we wouldn't have a lot of improvement without telemetry'. I am saying that we could have a lot of improvement in a lot of things if we wanted. We could have breakthroughs in medicine if we allowed human experimentation. The question is, where is that that line? Your argument doesn't address that, it just tries to justify something that people think it morally wrong by stating that we get use from it. | | |
| ▲ | jodrellblank 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > "You said 'but we wouldn't have a lot of improvement without telemetry'." I did not say that. Within the context of Microsoft's internal funding, maybe, but we could have the same improvement by Microsoft throwing more money at the PowerShell team without this telemetry. The core thing I said was that the information the telemetry gets cannot be got by "talk to your users" not that the telemetry leads to amazing improvements. It is still difficult for you to make the case that someone choosing to download PowerShell can be "not consenting" (and before you reply saying "PowerShell ships with Windows", the PowerShell which has telemetry does not [yet] ship with Windows). | |
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
|