

Linus blasts again - reactor
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/13/132

======
RyanZAG
I've never seen such fast buy in and process change when something goes wrong
if someone is polite. Just read the comments replying to Linus' post. All
parties involved realized how bad their mistake was and changed their build
testing to make sure it doesn't happen again.

There's a reason Linux is such an awesome system despite its hobbyist nature
and previously low budget, and Linus is likely that reason.

EDIT: Linus explains the reasoning behind his method far better than I could:
[http://marc.info/?l=linux-
kernel&m=137392506516022&w=2](http://marc.info/?l=linux-
kernel&m=137392506516022&w=2)

~~~
rtpg
I think it's important to note that Linus' style isn't resumed just in "being
an asshole", because the narrative he builds usually makes the issues he has
overtly obvious.

I think a lot of people here seem to think that "being rude" is the same as
"being Linus". But it actually requires a certain amount of skill to emulate.
And if you don't do it properly, you end up being less than useless.

Dunno about his reasoning, though. If someone's attitude is too disruptive to
the group, something has to change. Also, "acting professional" is more of a
buffer to try to keep people's emotions from going too over the top. Linus
seems to be able to control himself and keep the respect of people, but I
think we can all agree that there are a good amount of engineers that, if not
discouraged from doing so, would go a bit over the top in their actions,
thinking they're just being "direct", when in fact they're just harming
things.

Acting professional has always been first and foremost about separating issues
from people. The clothes seem to help in that for some reason, who knows why.
The lying and office politics is just human interaction.

~~~
RyanZAG
I agree - most of the comments below are arguing over whether being an asshole
is okay or not. I think that's completely missing the point as Linus isn't
being an asshole here. Half the world runs on Linux. Hospital systems run on
Linux. Peoples lives are literally at stake. If they're committing garbage
with obvious errors because they want to head home for the weekend earlier,
this is a serious problem that requires some serious action.

Linus calling out the problem and expressing just how badly the people
responsible have fucked up is the best coarse of action. If Linus was just
randomly insulting people he'd be an asshole. However, these mistaken commits
cost Linus hours of time and probably hours of time for many other people as
well, and likely slowed down the release of the kernel.

If the problem doesn't get fixed, the whole Linux project suffers. The only
valid management styles here would be removal of everyone involved from the
project, or making it as clear as possible how bad the mistake was. Linus
chose the second option - and I'd say that is a better option than the
'professional' option of passive-aggressive removal of commit privileges /
disciplinary action and starting real problems.

~~~
rtpg
>better option than the 'professional' option of passive-aggressive removal of
commit priveleges

Actually, the move Linus chose seems pretty "professional" in the "this is
pretty good management" sense:

\- The error was made public so that it won't be repeated

\- The exposition was done in such a way to understand exactly how much he
doesn't want this to happen again

The "calling it out in front of everybody" thing is.... I don't know how
necessary/unnecessary that is. But he doesn't attack the person, he attacked
the issue. That's the essential

~~~
kamaal
>>The error was made public so that it won't be repeated

People don't read 2 decades full of email history before committing to a repo.

The best way to prevent such mistakes is to provide the commit access only to
a branch- run your test on top of it, and merge it with the main branch only
if all the test cases pass.

>>The exposition was done in such a way to understand exactly how much he
doesn't want this to happen again

You can say what you what you want to say, without insulting someone.

>>I don't know how necessary/unnecessary that is. But he doesn't attack the
person, he attacked the issue. That's the essential

It doesn't work that way.

You are your work. That's now people take it. Doesn't matter how you want them
to take.

And that's not just with programmers. Try doing that with someone like a
doctor, or a teacher, or a painter or anyone for that matter. Try telling
them, how something they do should be done otherwise and watch how they react.

------
zalew
_On the internet, nobody can hear you being subtle_

 _If you want to talk cultural sensitivity, I 'll join you. But my culture
includes cursing._

[http://marc.info/?l=linux-
kernel&m=137391223711946&w=2](http://marc.info/?l=linux-
kernel&m=137391223711946&w=2)

tldr: deal with it.

~~~
otterley
I hope he doesn't talk to his children that way.

~~~
antocv
Wont somebody please think of the children!

------
dschiptsov
And it works.)

Actually, so-called polite-correctness is exaggerated. Of course, it is
unacceptable to, say, constantly remind a person with some disability that he
is somehow handicapped, comparing to other - he knows it perfectly well. But
there is nothing wrong to point out to a healthy adult, who act like an idiot
that he acts like an idiot - it is just an observation of what is.)

In case of a collaborative project, where an act of negligence or lack of
attention could cause an unpleasant difficulties, such tactic is quite
efficient, especially when you just cannot code-review everything.

Actually, it could be called a culture. Almost every, say, "primitive"
community is using the tactics of mocking and languagely abusing each other
to, so to speak, stay in a shape. A military unit or criminal gang are
canonical examples.) Of course, some constructive feedback must be given,
otherwise this would be regarded as offence and severely punished.

Psychology of lower classes isn't that sophisticated, and the methods they use
are primitive but efficient to some extent. One could use /b/ as a working
model.)

------
stephenr
...and it worked. The replies that follow admit some error on their part and
identify steps they are/have tak(ing)(en) to prevent it happening again.

What's with the obsession with his process?

~~~
duncan_bayne
Because that style has a cost: it drives away people who don't like being
called a fucking motherfucker on a public mailing list (at least, that's how
Google Translate translated his comment).

Perhaps the benefit (fewer commits like this) is worth the cost. I suspect it
is.

~~~
mmcnickle
Read it again. He doesn't call anyone any names. All his ire is directed at
the _commit_.

~~~
miles
_" Read it again. He doesn't call anyone any names."_

Yes he does:

 _" now I'll have to call you perkeleen vittupää"_

And according to other comments in this thread, it is apparently quite a foul
moniker.

This sort of management style has been lauded on HN ("It worked for Jobs!"),
but I have to agree with foobarbazqux's comment[1]; I just don't understand
why folks are so eager to not only overlook, but to praise this sort of
behvior.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6050411](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6050411)

~~~
derefr
Possibly because some people (myself included) would actually volunteer to
work under someone like this--because "caring enough about the product to get
angry" is actually a useful quality in a leader, if you believe in the product
and want it to succeed (rather than just being there to make your pay and not
make waves.)

Of course, if he also gets angry about _not-_ the-product, he might be
horrible to work with--but I've never seen this to be the case; Linus seems
like a genuinely nice guy in every other situation.

~~~
cjh_
I also quite like the bluntness in that it is very clear what his opinion is,
I can easily understand where and how I went wrong and actively work to
correct this.

------
foobarbazqux
What I don't understand about Linus Torvalds is why everybody is so quick to
justify and forgive what is obviously emotional abuse.

If he was shooting people that submitted buggy patches, would you say that was
awesome? Obviously not. How is a less violent form of abuse suddenly great?

Lots of shitty solutions are highly effective. Relying on them is the lazy and
uncaring way of dealing with your fellow humans.

~~~
codeboost
Oh come on. Everyone is so fucking sensitive these days. We now have
psychological terms for every little emotion and behavior, but come on, put
these into perspective.

Our grandparents would slap you in the face for calling this an abuse. Try
sitting in a trench with tanks rolling by and bombs falling from the sky
during WW2, at 18.

I could go on with examples of what 'emotional abuse' is, but I think you get
my point. The submitter fucked up and he got a slap on the wrist. And it was
good for the entire community. The 'abused' submitter will probably triple
check his commits and will be a better programmer as a result. Everyone wins.

~~~
foobarbazqux
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_abuse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_abuse)

Telling somebody that they are "so fucking sensitive" is abusive. I'd be
offended by that comment if I was the recipient of Linus' wrath here.

~~~
zalew
And what would have happened due to getting offended? Your leg would fall off?
Your eyes would bleed? "Getting offended" is a purely cultural and personal
issue. Somebody out there in the world is offended because you wear shorts, so
what. Got to find your way to deal with it or confront it. Those online
wambulance calls are ridiculous.

[http://marc.info/?l=linux-
kernel&m=137392506516022&w=2](http://marc.info/?l=linux-
kernel&m=137392506516022&w=2)

 _So as far as I 'm concerned, the discussion is about "how to work together
DESPITE people being different". Not about trying to make everybody please
each other. Because I can pretty much guarantee that I'll continue cursing. To
me, the discussion would be about how to work together despite these kinds of
cultural differences, not about "how do we make everybody nice and sing songs
sound the campfire"_

~~~
foobarbazqux
> This wambulance calls are ridiculous.

This statement is also emotional abuse. Emotional abuse creates psychological
pain. Psychological pain creates physical pain. That is all that happens. It's
a biological process.

Why is it a problem if I say that I would feel pain in response to somebody's
words? This is just a fact I know about myself.

~~~
zalew
If you have psychological issues, you should consult a specialist. You can't
put guilt on everybody who doesn't meet your rhetorical or substantial
standards - even for the purely technical reason that this solution simply
won't scale.

Feeling offended is a buzzword way too often abused for selfish and
discriminatory reasons, so don't be surprised many people refuse to accept it
as an argument, especially the ones comming from different cultural
backgrounds where they weren't indoctrinated by a political correctness
bubble.

~~~
foobarbazqux
Emotions are what they are. They are not negotiable, you can't make them go
away, they are simply things that are there. If I hit you in the face, you
would feel a bunch of different emotions. Who am I to tell you that these are
not real things you are feeling?

Yes, I agree that stating an emotion isn't an argument, because it is a
subjective truth.

~~~
Psyonic
> If I hit you in the face, you would feel a bunch of different emotions.

Yes... but even here, context matters.

I do martial arts, and when I get hit in the face while sparring, it's useful
feedback and something I can learn from. If my training partners weren't
willing to hit me occasionally, they'd be doing me a disservice.

~~~
foobarbazqux
I agree that context matters, but Linus isn't a sparring partner. Maybe a
better analogy would be your martial arts teacher suddenly hitting you for
wasting his time because you were lazy the last time you put back your
equipment. If another student kicked you for complaining about this treatment,
it would be normal to feel upset.

It's normal to have expectations about human behavior, and it's normal to get
upset when they aren't met. It's actually healthy to expect our superiors to
treat us with civility when we screw up. We expect that from the cops, for
example. If your underlings are continually screwing up, this generally
indicates a problem with your process. It's similarly healthy to expect
colleagues, friends, and partners to support us when an authority has misused
their power.

------
noonespecial
I love Linus. I love his rants. But seriously, he's going to be one _crazy_
old man by the time he hits the old-folk's home.

~~~
neuroscr
These rants are what make him a good leader. He has a clear mission/focus of
how he wants things to work, and clearly communicates when he feels things are
broken.

~~~
davidw
Swearing at other people is pretty easy, and lots of people do it, yet there
are few people who create and manage something like Linux. My conclusion is
that the rants are not what make him a good leader. Perhaps his style is part
of the equation, but it's more complex than simply being good at ranting and
calling other people stupid.

------
greenyoda
_" There aren't enough swear-words in the English language, so now I'll have
to call you perkeleen vittupää just to express my disgust and frustration with
this crap."_

According to Google Translate, _perkeleen vittupää_ means the following in
Finnish:

[http://translate.google.com/?hl=en&tab=wT#fi/en/perkeleen%20...](http://translate.google.com/?hl=en&tab=wT#fi/en/perkeleen%20vittup%C3%A4%C3%A4)

~~~
zalew
> There aren't enough swear-words in the English language

I can second that as a Pole.

~~~
Svip
I remember watching the _South Park_ film from the 1990s with Danish
subtitles, and realised the subtitles' swear words were far worse than the
English ones.

Stranger still, they air _The Daily Show_ here uncensored.

------
krakensden
Are we going to do this every time now?

------
neuroscr
Props to the replies. His team there are responsible professionals. Any one
could have stopped after the first took the blame but they all stepped up and
this is how it's supposed to work. Hopefully Linus won't rip their heads off
=]

------
pupppet
I'd be interested in seeing how many people here giving Linus a free pass were
just fine with sweaty Ballmer throwing chairs. That's just his personality and
it works because MS makes billions, right?

------
kamaal
Abuse, swearing and provoking people(using stuff like taunts, shouting on
them, publicly humiliating them, challenging them etc) to get some thing done
never works. The only reason why its working for him, is his fame. And even
that won't be put up by any guy who has problems giving away his self esteem.

Around 3 years back I worked under two very technically brilliant people, but
their biggest problem was just the kind of stuff you see here. I remember the
entire team would change every 6 months. The team was supposed to be some kind
of an elite hand picked team from within the whole company, as they were
supposed to focus on big revenue based projects. But I saw some awesome
people, leave every 3-6 months of joining just because it was impossible to
work with those two people. 'Do you know how he behaved yesterday with person
X' kind of lunch/coffee table discussions were simply too common.

I recently happened to meet a guy who just left that team. He recalled the
impossibility of working with those two people. Something that we both
noticed, those two haven't seem to have anything substantial in the past
decade. Almost any project that they touch crashes and burns and ever never
proceeds anywhere beyond 30-50% mark.

The thing is plain and simple. You have no rights to behave that way with
anyone(No matter who you are). Secondly, anybody who is good has no reason to
put up with you, Why should they? So the net-net is these are team destroying
activities.

If you are good, and then that is that. What can you do without a team in
software these days?

Never resort to a impolite public engagement. Your best bet is to be calm(even
in case of a big goof up) take the person to a room and explain to him the
seriousness of his mistake and help him avoid making such mistakes in the
future.

~~~
mercer
I think it depends. I'm inclined to agree with Linus' approach, but I'll just
argue that _sometimes_ "abuse, swearing and provoking people" is the best
approach.

Some of the best lessons I learned was being chewed out by a manager. The
magnitude of my stupidity or fuck-up would simply not have sunken in even if
this manager had been factual and direct, without chewing me out.

The same goes for my youth. I remember some lessons mostly because they
involved my father yelling at me. I recall very few lessons where he sat me
down and provided a detailed, factual argument of why I was being a dumb-ass.

I don't get the impression that, in growing up, our ability to assess
magnitudes of failure by factual analysis of the situation has improved enough
to render 'chewing-out' pointless.

------
bowerbird
i would guess somebody sensed that linus had built up too much steam \-- it
happens to the best of us -- so they gave him a great reason to blow his stack
and clear the air...

and they all got a good laugh with it.

yep, that's what i would guess... :+)

-bowerbird

