Re: Concerning uniliateral decision making with respect to the coreutils package

> On 9 Jul 2026, at 18:50, Andrey Rakhmatullin <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2026 at 06:43:26PM +0300, Hakan Bayındır wrote:
>> Let me put another forward-looking statement: Big Linux vendors might stop sharing source packages for their versions of uutils, and may even bake in DRM and/or “user-watching analytics” features into them to TiVoize their distributions
> 
> Please do not.
> 
>> Am I (or others putting this possibility forward) blowing this out of proportion, too?
> 
> Yes, clearly.
> 
> 
> -- 
> WBR, wRAR

Your email about FUD remarks didn’t arrive to my inbox, yet I have seen in on the web, so I’m replying to this mail instead:

> This is literally FUD.

Yes and no. This is why I wrote that. While it might happen, that’s a possibility, but it’s a very weak one. However, talking about it creates discomfort. This brings us to your second point, which is spot-on:

> We shouldn't have FUD on our MLs.

Exactly. If we shan’t allow future statement which might not realize, and sow Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt; we equally shouldn’t tolerate somebody talking about something uncertain which creates Fear Uncertainty and Doubt on others.

I might blog about what I wrote in my previous e-mail, or plaster it on everywhere on the web, but it’ll anger people rightfully. But, if somebody else is being tolerated because it has written more LOCs, and/or has certain titles, now I believe this is wrong.

You have every right to react to my e-mail, rightfully so. In that respect, I have every right to react, albeit kindly to something I find wrong or damaging to Debian as a whole.

I might not be a DD, but I’m a former tech-lead of a Debian Derivative, and I care about Debian at least as everyone who cares to follow and post to this ML.

With respect,

H.