> I seriously doubt marketing and advertising departments will care about standards, if they would even notice.
The _vast_ majority of applications this relates to are not going to have marketing and advertising departments. They're unlikely to have more than a handful of maintainers. Most are likely just someone's side project.
> The industry can't even manage with web standards, imagine trying to get scummy tracking companies to comply.
We're not talking about a new standard that's even remotely in the same league as web standards in terms of complexity and nor are we talking about getting every scummy company to comply. A lot of command line applications already have an opt out so all this is proposing is making that opt out option the same.
This isn't any different to other common environmental variables like http_proxy -- not every application supports it but enough does that it is still useful.
> IMO it's not even an imperfect solution. I'd say performative, and past DNT efforts have failed, so why are trying this again?
As of yet, no effort has been made with regards to DNT in this field. You're conflating running untrusted web applications, with running trusted (and often open source) applications locally on the command line. They're two very different fields and as said already DNT options already exist for the latter but with every application having their own preferred variable name. All this proposal is seeking to do is standardise that name.
> Maybe a tool that lets one easily report software for GDPR violations? That would have more teeth.
To reiterate my original comment: the existence of one doesn't prevent the existence of the other. Why pick when we can have both?
The _vast_ majority of applications this relates to are not going to have marketing and advertising departments. They're unlikely to have more than a handful of maintainers. Most are likely just someone's side project.
> The industry can't even manage with web standards, imagine trying to get scummy tracking companies to comply.
We're not talking about a new standard that's even remotely in the same league as web standards in terms of complexity and nor are we talking about getting every scummy company to comply. A lot of command line applications already have an opt out so all this is proposing is making that opt out option the same.
This isn't any different to other common environmental variables like http_proxy -- not every application supports it but enough does that it is still useful.
> IMO it's not even an imperfect solution. I'd say performative, and past DNT efforts have failed, so why are trying this again?
As of yet, no effort has been made with regards to DNT in this field. You're conflating running untrusted web applications, with running trusted (and often open source) applications locally on the command line. They're two very different fields and as said already DNT options already exist for the latter but with every application having their own preferred variable name. All this proposal is seeking to do is standardise that name.
> Maybe a tool that lets one easily report software for GDPR violations? That would have more teeth.
To reiterate my original comment: the existence of one doesn't prevent the existence of the other. Why pick when we can have both?