Yeah, I realized halfway through my list that I was mostly listing infrastructure; that's why I tacked on editors and GIMP. The original claim was that analytics were required to avoid software being terrible, and I mostly wanted to point out that this is obviously false; kind of software and community support make an impact, but they're not a hard requirement, and at any rate I think we're moving the goalposts here.

> You can hardly compare coreutils to smartphone apps.

Indeed; coreutils works on an absurd variety of unix-family systems, is copyleft, respects privacy, and is high-quality. If smartphone apps were more like coreutils, we'd all be better off.

> As someone who deals with Android fragmentation daily, you wouldn't believe how hard it is to support the whole ecosystem. Disliking analytics I can understand, but crash reporting adds measurable improvement in the quality of software.

I do understand where you're coming from; while I don't have skin in that game, I'm passingly aware of the remarkable ways that vendors break their systems. And honestly, if you get user consent, I don't actually have a problem with having the app report problems to you. It's just the "send information about the user's system without asking" thing that I object to.

It's almost like you can ask your users to help with automated one-touch bug report submissions, instead of taking the data without asking.

> Apport will notify you about the crash and offer to file it. Do that.

I wouldn't call it auto-reporting when the user has to agree first; consent is the sticking point. (Same for abrt) (granted, I should have been more precise and I suppose that is automated in a sense; I took "automatic" to mean "without asking")