Telemetry is important to making a good product. The developer needs to know about crashes and what causes them
Telemetry is the new age bullshit excuse and alternative to proper in-house software testing and money cuts. Why hire testers and have public testing programs if you can just deploy to the end users, let it break and then collect logs. You’ll get tons of PII as a bonus :)
No amount of in-house testing is going to catch everything that can be experienced on a nearly-infinite amount of hardware/software configurations that are tested once a large userbase gets a hold of a product.
Yeah I guess NASA, Lockheed Martin and Airbus all use analytics for testing instead of actual testing. You seem to be very unware of the current corporate trend of replacing in-house testing by analytics as a cost cutting strategy.
I do wonder why billion dollar companies (or in the case of NASA, an organization that AFAIK is still funded directly by the government) can afford to do this.
I’d also argue that extremely rigorous testing is a bit more important in terms of life-or-death scenarios for the companies that you mentioned, rather than Mozilla - but hey, that could just be me.
I mean come on, your comparison might work for a company that can hold a candle to the ones you mentioned (ie, Google or Apple) but how large do you think Mozilla (who still has to take handouts from Google essentially) is? Even then, I’d still say it’s probably a bad comparison given my second point.
Have you ever noticed that when stuff was sold on CDs and internet updates weren’t a thing software was properly tested and mostly bug free while today the end user has to be the beta tester and report bugs / have telemetry?
Software should be approached as engineering not as the shit show it is today.
Telemetry is the new age bullshit excuse and alternative to proper in-house software testing and money cuts. Why hire testers and have public testing programs if you can just deploy to the end users, let it break and then collect logs. You’ll get tons of PII as a bonus :)
No amount of in-house testing is going to catch everything that can be experienced on a nearly-infinite amount of hardware/software configurations that are tested once a large userbase gets a hold of a product.
Yeah I guess NASA, Lockheed Martin and Airbus all use analytics for testing instead of actual testing. You seem to be very unware of the current corporate trend of replacing in-house testing by analytics as a cost cutting strategy.
I do wonder why billion dollar companies (or in the case of NASA, an organization that AFAIK is still funded directly by the government) can afford to do this.
I’d also argue that extremely rigorous testing is a bit more important in terms of life-or-death scenarios for the companies that you mentioned, rather than Mozilla - but hey, that could just be me.
I mean come on, your comparison might work for a company that can hold a candle to the ones you mentioned (ie, Google or Apple) but how large do you think Mozilla (who still has to take handouts from Google essentially) is? Even then, I’d still say it’s probably a bad comparison given my second point.
Yeah, embedded systems for military applications is exactly the same as consumer software. You’re right.
Have you ever noticed that when stuff was sold on CDs and internet updates weren’t a thing software was properly tested and mostly bug free while today the end user has to be the beta tester and report bugs / have telemetry?
Software should be approached as engineering not as the shit show it is today.
tell me you’re not a decent software developer without telling me you’re not a decent software developer