The less I know about users of the software I write, the better.
> we need at least some data about how Manjaro is being used by so many people around the world in order to show that the project has a future and also to plan for that future.
Charitably, this implies they want to plan around things like infrastructure scaling. Why can't they just look at present demands on their infrastructure? (i.e. why bother with a proxy metric when you have the real metrics right there?)
And it's their software, not yours. They are free to require telemetry if they choose to do so. You're also free not to use their software if you don't like it.
FWIW, I think it should be opt-in by default, but I think it's reasonable (aside from adhering to necessary privacy laws) for a project to choose the policy they want.
Arguably, the point of open source software (or at least GPL licensed software) is that the owner of the hardware gets to "own" the software and can do what they like with it.
In that scenario they certainly can. They just have to take the source, modify it to suit their needs, and recompile it. They are 100% within their rights to do that.
I would have thought they'd find details on different architectures or specific chips of more interest. Personally, I don't mind allowing telemetry to open source projects, but it should always by opt-in rather than by default.
> we need at least some data about how Manjaro is being used by so many people around the world in order to show that the project has a future and also to plan for that future.
Charitably, this implies they want to plan around things like infrastructure scaling. Why can't they just look at present demands on their infrastructure? (i.e. why bother with a proxy metric when you have the real metrics right there?)