Smolt: firsboot revisited

[Baris Cicek]

Why is that so different from bug-buddy sending bug report, or MS
Windows sending bug report using already installed (for MS case, even
embedded) software? If it was a legal issue, it might have been brought
forward years ago and should have been resolved already. 

For those mechanisms you can choose to send it or easily discard it. I'm
not quite sure about MS bug reporting tool, but bug-buddy is helpful for
GNOME developers. 

I hope smolt would serve similar benefits. And well my vote is 'yes' if
it counts. 


On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 09:43 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 03:37 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 09:32 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 02:19 +0000, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> > > > On 2/16/07, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 02:33 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 08:20 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I don't think you've ever said how the information is being sent
> > > > without user permission or what the personal data is that is being
> > > > sent.
> > 
> > > The smolt developers would be the ones to reply this. 
> > The smolt developers and the smolt code HAS replied to this.
> 
> Yes, but this thread started with "Shall smolt be installed by default",
> so the question wasn't "opt-in/opt-out", it was "installed by default"
> 
> I expressed my opinion and said: No, ...
> 
> Arthur's was "how" - I said "http:" and "what"
> 
> Ralf
> 
>