
Why This Hacker Stood Up Against ‘Verbal Abuse’ in Linux Land - nicholassmith
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/07/sarah_sharp/
======
speeder
I understand her viewpoint...

But I read Linus e-mail explaining his attitude, and I am more inclined to
agree with him instead.

I am one that sometimes people called caustic or whatnot, including in my
current startup, no matter how much I made a great effort to be polite and
make clear I was not attacking anyone, every time I said the artist did
something wrong, he would get pissed off and offended.

After a while I gave up, and started to write in my usual "caustic looking"
style, and the artist started to understand me more, make less mistakes, and
now we can make jokes and work with other without issues.

I personally hate the "corporate" style culture of being passive agressive,
avoiding confrontations, being polite all the times and whatnot.

If you annoys me, I will tell you that you annoy me, and if you insist, I will
throw a "fuck you".

I remember how much I hated every environment that I was, where "verbal abuse"
was curtailed, because I never knew if someone was saying the truth or not,
and in the end I started to behave like if everyone was a serial liar, and
when you cannot trust anyone, it is hard to get anything done.

~~~
codyb
Is it not possible to both be, perhaps stern and clear in view without being
abrasive?

"Hey John, thanks for contributing. I see you updated X. There's a lot of good
there but this algorithm really needs to run faster and use less memory. Check
out how Sarah did it here when working with Y. Additionally, here's some
resources. Thanks."

~~~
jdjb
"Hey John, thanks for contributing" \- This is only true if you are actually
grateful to John. Otherwise, John is wasting your time (if his patch is
complete rubbish).

"There's a lot of good there but this algorithm really needs to run faster and
use less memory" \- Another lie (unless there actually is a lot of good
there). What if there's not a lot of good? Should we just prefix our statement
with this banal clause?

"Check out how Sarah did it here when working with Y. Additionally, here's
some resources." So now someone who's time is worth a lot (top tier linux
maintainer) is responsible to LMGTFY for everyone who contributes?

~~~
codyb
Sometimes a little politics goes a long way. You can always be grateful
someone is taking their time to contribute to a project even if they're not
particularly good at it yet. Version control and branching means things don't
have to be implemented immediately or at all.

If there's not a lot of good, I was assuming perhaps it was one part of his
contribution, but if there isn't any good at all then how about "Thanks for
contributing but in order to be an effective member of the team you're really
going to need to work on X, Y, and Z. Unfortunately we cannot commit your
patch to the code repository until this is the case. If you do work on X, Y,
and Z though you should be at a point where you can contribute to quite a wide
variety of areas within this project and will be a quite a valued member! We
need people like you with dedication. And don't worry about it, if you look at
version 0.a.b you'll see I made a bunch of the same mistakes!"

If you have the time to dole out harsh criticism of someones patch you can't
take the time to provide a helpful comment instead of an overtly negative one?
"Oh I spent all this time reviewing your code and it sucks." is better to you
than taking the what, ten or fifteen minutes to compose a quality reply? I
understand the top tier linux manager's time is valuable. But if you can tell
the code is wrong, then give reasons for why it is wrong, tell them you can
not commit until those reasons are corrected, and do so in a polite manner. In
addition, by providing resources, you make your own job easier as the quality
of patches continues to improve in quality, you retain talent, and foster new
talent within the software community.

If you don't want to provide resources then perhaps a "Hey, if you have any
questions trying to work through X, Y, and Z try to contact me here although
you'll get far quicker responses on irc.freenode.net #linux".

~~~
daemon13
>> But if you can tell the code is wrong, then give reasons for why it is
wrong, tell them you can not commit until those reasons are corrected, and do
so in a polite manner. In addition, by providing resources, you make your own
job easier as the quality of patches continues to improve in quality, you
retain talent, and foster new talent within the software community.

One of the problems with assumptions here is that kernel maintainers by
definition shall know that their code is wrong and why it is wrong . If this
is not true, they shall not be kernel maintainers.

Another one is that Linus does not need to retain talent that can not perform
to acceptable standards.

Please note that acceptable standards are different for different people.

~~~
codyb
No this is totally true and I agree. But if you can mold someone into
performing at acceptable standards than you have more talent which produces
better products faster. That's basically my reasoning for my approach.

If you do not know why the code is wrong, then tell them what it is doing
wrong in a similar fashion. "Hey John, I see you updated this patch. Thanks
but it seems to be hogging memory. What can you do about that?"

Perhaps you point them to people who have worked in that area before. "Well
you working on I/O, you know Tim over here has worked in that area before, he
might be busy but if you can't figure it out on your own maybe you can shoot
him a question and see if replies."

I guess a kernel maintainer may never make a mistake since you assume it is a
tautology that all kernel maintainers by definition know when and where and
why their code is wrong or they could not be kernel maintainers. Or you're
implying that any kernel retainer will, upon being notified, no matter the
language of the rebuke, immediately know how to fix it and will also be
willing to do so.

There are also different levels of experience for different people. It doesn't
mean you should throw them off the ship or so harshly rebuke them that they
never return to the project.

And if there are different standards than you probably don't need to give
everyone the harshest standard.

Alright but I've posted enough in this thread.

------
AndrewDucker
There seems to be a line of thinking that one can only be "fake polite" or
"aggressive", and that there is no in-between.

It is perfectly possible to be assertive without being aggressive - to be
certain, and strong-sounding without belittling the person you're talking to.

It does require more effort, to many people, than simply screaming at them.
But if you want to get the best results out of them, and avoid putting off
people who simply don't want to be around someone who screams, then it's worth
investing the time.

~~~
agentultra
I agree.

There are genuinely intelligent people out there who look up to Linus and
people like him. And the problem is that they look up to these people and
identify with their behaviour because they want to be seen as uncompromising
geniuses. They identify with a contrarian attitude and view conventional
social _idioms_ (for a lack of a better word at the moment) as ineffective in
technical discussions. And so telling these people that the way they are
behaving is not appropriate is essentially viewed by them as a personal
insult. It all ends in a very divisive, two-sided argument.

The problem with Linus isn't Linus; it's that people want to be like Linus.
They want to be seen as strong, assertive, and uncompromising technical
leaders. They don't want peoples' feelings to interfere with their work. They
view themselves as contrarians and will seek to identify with leaders in their
community which reinforce their world-view. And the problem with that is one
of misplaced attribution.

It's not wrong to use wit and a little strong language in a debate.
Christopher Hitchens, a famous contrarian, employed such tactics from time to
time with great effect. The difference however between someone like Hitchens
and someone moderating a contributions to an open source project is that
Hitchens was trained in rhetoric, elocution, and debate. He knew how to use
insults and jabs in appropriate situations with practiced intent. Someone who
views themselves as a contrarian and identifies with someone like Hitchens or
Linus is prone to _believe_ they understand these things when in fact they do
not.

Very few schools teach such subjects today and I suspect even fewer
programmers have ever bothered to take them.

However articles like OP's don't serve to forward the discussion. If we
attempt to tell people who consider themselves to be intelligent contrarians
that they are behaving inappropriately then they will immediately appeal to
their heroes' success. This only starts the discussion off as a personal
attack and devolves it into a polarized argument. Hardly useful.

Instead there must be a way to convince ourselves that losing your temper on a
mailing list and denigrating the efforts and skills of other contributors is
not the proper way to behave. There are other, more effective ways of being
assertive and uncompromising that won't insult people and cause so many
needless flame wars.

~~~
theorique
_The problem with Linus isn 't Linus; it's that people want to be like Linus._

This nails it.

It's not that Linus or his style are right or wrong, it's that that some
people assume that his abrasiveness is the _cause_ of his genius rather than
an unrelated personal trait.

------
RyanZAG
I personally find people demanding Linus change to fit them to be the rudest
thing I have ever seen.

Let's look at the history quickly: Linus sits down to write an OS as a hobby.
It's a huge success and he shares it for free with everyone who wants to use
it. Some big corporations like Intel see how good the thing that Linus has
made is, and they employ people to help him out.

They then turn around and say Linux is now a big corporate project, and Linus
needs to watch his manners? Fuck them, they wouldn't have Linux without him.
It's beyond rude for these people to demand Linus fit their corporate culture.
I'd say they are welcome to communicate privately with Linus - with a lot of
respect owed to him - and convince him to the merits of behaving differently.
But to go to the press and make a public statement on how Linus needs to
change himself? It's simply disgusting.

Linus is free to act however he wants, and anybody dealing with him is free to
walk away. They won't though - Linus has shown incredible ability in managing
contributors and also great 'taste' in keeping the kernel working smoothly.
This article, however, is plain rude.

~~~
brazzy
No, you are wrong, and Linus is wrong and you are both worthless assholes who
should just fuck off and die. Oh, you don't like my tone? Yeah, just like a
loser to play the victim card. Learn to accept my different style of
communication already!

The disgusting things here are Linus' behaviour and your rationalizing of it.

~~~
daemon13
The difference is that Linus resorts to such communication for a reason versus
you doing this just to prove your point.

~~~
brazzy
Oh, and what is Linus' reason, if not to prove his point? He pretty much
outright says so: he thinks it's necessary to swear to get people to listen.

~~~
daemon13
>> he thinks it's necessary to swear to get people to listen.

That is correct, but ONLY when people (specifically kernel maintainers)
produce much below acceptable standards. In case I am missing smth - can you
point to an e-mail where Linus was cursing at a newcomer (i.e. not kernel
maintainer)?

------
tehwalrus
I was lost as to context, following the mailing list thread (which was
essentially just Linus' response to something I hadn't seen.)

I was in the middle to start with, and this pushes me right onto Sarah's side.
Especially this:

> _" I don’t think we’re going to hate each other. I think we’re going to go
> to Kernel Summit and eat cookies and discuss this."_

You can definitely give negative feedback without being a foulmouth,
especially when you're talking to people who are _at work_. You can be
emphatic, rigorous and uncompromising without swearing or insulting anyone.

Sarah, in fact, is giving exactly this sort of negative feedback to Linus. He
just needs to understand that, and that everyone is always improving how they
work, no matter how many years they've been doing it, and no matter whether
they invented the field.

~~~
gonvaled
Sarah is essentially saying: " _everybody_ can love each other, and when there
is a mistake, we will just kiss each other harder until we get the problem
solved". This, in my opinion, is much too optimistic.

Linus is saying: "there are some people I do not like, and I will _never_
like. But I do not want that to get in the way of being productive. We can
still work in the same project, maybe not side by side. And whenever you make
a mistake, I will let you know without the tiniest doubt. And _you_ should do
the same, too." I think this is clever, and allows for very diverse teams,
where people are able to work together even though personally do not fit at
all. People are different - let's find a way to overcome that!

Basically, Sarah is worried about the social side of running the kernel - the
egos of people - and Linus is (surprisingly for a manager!) worried about the
technical side, sidestepping personal issues. He just does not care if you are
feeling hurt. For that, you have your mum.

For him, the only worthwhile goal is to be productive, and to communicate
clearly what he is thinking. Sarah expects him to _understand_ that she is
pissed by this. In this case, the whole context makes it very easy to
understand it, but being polite is very often the wrong way to make things
clear. It just takes much longer, and sometimes you never realize there was a
problem to start with. Since she is trying to solve this issue "politely", it
will just take forever, and no solution will be reached - because there is no
solution! People are not going to start loving each other just because she
would like to. She is trying to create a kernel lah-lah land, where everybody
is happy and at peace with each other. Not gonna happen!

At the end of the day, it just a harsh email that you get. I would say, get
over it!

~~~
tehwalrus
You put quotes around your (biased and wrong[1]) summary of what Sarah said,
and then quoted Linus word for word in the same style. Dude, you're presenting
parody-fiction and evidence on a par. Not. Cool.

Sarah and I do _not_ think that people have to like each other in order to act
civilly towards one another; the entire weak-tie economy _proves_ this to be
false, in fact.

She _is_ saying (and I agree) that you can be robust and challenge someone
without turning off your brain-mouth filter for trash talk. I think you'll
find people can be just as productive and technically awesome without all the
swearing.

[1] and probably sexist, since you implied that the girl is talking about
kissing. Seriously, dude? That's all female programmers can ever be talking
about?

~~~
daemon13
>> Dude, you're presenting parody-fiction

gonvaled shared his interpretation of the context and his opinion whilst you
are engaging in the personal attack.

I just wonder what would be Sarah's reply to your style above [dude, brain-
mouth filter for trash talk...].

>> Sarah and I do not think ...

Are you Sarah's colleague, by the way?

~~~
tehwalrus
> _" gonvaled shared his interpretation of the context and his opinion whilst
> you are engaging in the personal attack."_

umm, what? I didn't use any insults, I just talked about why the user's
behaviour/arguments were bad. It's criticism, yes, but it's not ad hominem,
it's on the behaviour and the ideas.

> _" I just wonder what would be Sarah's reply to your style above"_

If two (almost certainly) male people on the internet can't address one
another as dude, I don't know what the world is coming to[1]. Some people
might object, yes (I remember a particularly pompous twitter politico who
balked at me calling him "dude" on twitter in an argument) - but this is how I
talk out loud, and it's not obscene it's just informal. I don't believe it
conflicts in any way with what I've said about being politely robust and
emphatic.

> _" Are you Sarah's colleague, by the way?"_

no, never heard of her before this incident. I find it kind of sad that you
thought I might be some kind of stooge. Feminist boys do exist, you know.

[1] I do occasionally use "dude" as an exclamation when talking to girls too,
but it is usually in person and quite obviously sarcastic (I am British, and I
say "dude" in a vaguely Californian accent, a result of listening to too much
Blink 182 as a teenager I think.)

------
notacoward
The problematic thing about Linus's behavior is not its direct effects but the
example it sets. Even if one can justify his behavior in terms of his
responsibilities at the top of the technical hierarchy, that doesn't justify
_worse_ behavior by those _lower_ down. Others see what he does and take it
one step further. Then, in the absence of a correction from him, they take it
another step further, until they're just as nasty as their own pathologies
allow them to be, and newcomers start to imitate that _right off the bat_.
Just one "Al, that was over the line" comment from Linus would damp that
feedback loop. The continued absence of leadership on that front ends up
affecting the overall tone far more than the occasional one-on-one outburst.

P.S. To cheery, since you've been hellbanned: that's a false dichotomy. I'm
not suggesting that people should be artificially nice. I'm not a nice guy
myself. I'm just suggesting that discussions should be kept focused and fact-
based, not made personal or nasty for the sake of entertainment or sheer
bloody-mindedness. That's what I see both on LKML and here, and it serves no
purpose. It's not honest, it's not efficient, it's just being a dick.

------
xradionut
This is why Linus may want to consider toning it down or fin another way to
make his point:

"But 80 percent of the kernel contributors are paid by companies. So that
means that the Linux kernel really has a lot of people from corporations on
there. Some of them, like Linus, are paid by nonprofits. But it’s still
becoming more of a corporate environment, and a lot of corporations have codes
of conduct. And those codes of conduct often say things about how you conduct
yourself on public forums or social media. The code of conduct for those
companies also applies to the [Linux Kernel] mailing list.

So we need to figure out how to be respectful and civil to each other in the
mailing list because this is no longer a volunteer project. People are paid to
work on this. This is about making a workplace more civil and more
respectful."

It's not just a good ole boy OSS project anymore.

~~~
parennoob
I do not understand this argument (Side Note: I am fully supportive of the
idea of being nice, encouraging, and forgiving towards people in Open Source
development).

Unless The Linux Foundation (which is what pays Linus himself) states a code
of conduct, and says that it will dismiss Linus unless he follows it, I don't
see why he has to be respectful of, say, Intel's code of conduct. Also, what
about an unpaid volunteer? Why should they respect corporate codes of conduct
when they are not being paid a single cent?

Two Intel engineers working on Intel's internal kernel fork may well have to
do that. But the precise reason it _is_ an Open Source project is that it is
unaffected by corporate policies of any sort. This applies to "codes of
conduct" just as much as it applies to "keep your [computer] code 100%
private".

It is still 'just' an OSS project.

~~~
xradionut
And Python and other OSS conventions and projects are adopting Codes of
Conduct and working through these pains.

Linus might want to consider that Intel is playing the salaries of
professionals that are dealing with some tough hardware driver challenges. If
he feels that unpaid volunteers can commit the same level of quality while
enduring four letter words, more power to him.

Linux may be OSS, but pull the corporate support and see what happens over
time. Corporations are currently willing to deal with these small issues of
personality because they are mostly isolated from them and having Linux around
is good for business.

------
danso
Ignoring the actual assessment of "Is Linus _too_ abusive?"...do those who
defend Linus think there's no middle ground between harsh and benevolent forms
of dictatorship (let's also ignore evaluating the goodness of dictatorships in
general)?

In other words, does harshness positively correlate with success? Sure, you
can cite Steve Jobs. But others could cite Woz, who while delivered plenty of
harsh technical criticisms of his own, still seems to have avoided doing it in
a way that denigrated both the person and the work.

~~~
hhw
The middle ground is Linus continuing to be who he is, and the corporate types
can be as professional as their employers require. I strongly disagree with
Sharp's premise that the entire kernel team should act professionally just
because there are corporations paying kernel developers, who should somehow
have elevated status because they now account for 80% of the development. The
corporations are the ones who chose to play in a volunteer sandbox, and they
are in essence volunteers of the project themselves; it's just their employees
who aren't. That relationship is between the paid developers and their
employers, not between the paid developers and the project.

~~~
sp332
In part of the conversation Sharp spoke up in, Linus was instructing another
maintainer, Greg, to learn how to yell at people because he is currently too
much of a pushover. Sharp's point is that maintainers should not encourage
each other to verbally abuse submitters. There's a difference between being
nice and being a doormat, but Linus is acting like there isn't.

------
gnu8
If Linus is too abusive, perhaps this developer should consider joining the
OpenBSD project. I hear Theo is a really nice guy to work with.

~~~
tcdowney
Is he actually nice or are you being sarcastic?

~~~
anuragramdasan
Your answers lie in his quotes.
[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Theo_de_Raadt](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Theo_de_Raadt)

~~~
talmand
I especially like the one where he states that Linux is garbage.

People defend abrasive guy because they claim his abrupt communication style
maintains quality code. But even more abrasive guy claims abrasive guy's
project is garbage. Therefore, can we assume abrasive guy is full of crap
because even more abrasive guy says he is?

I'm just trying to understand the logic behind defending such behavior.

~~~
anuragramdasan
The whole world is a Blub Paradox.

------
johndoe32
As someone who's borderline ADHD and who frequently struggles with American
social conventions (to the point where it's a significant stressor in my
life), I'm much more threatened by people like Sarah than by Linus.

Sarah is probably more pleasant to deal with if you're socially skilled, but
she demands the same thing in return, and will call you out---and apparently
even go to the press---if she doesn't like how you interact with people.
People like Linus will just pay attention to your actual point, and will look
past the cultural subtleties of _how_ you said something.

Every time Linus says something like, "shut the fuck up, Mauro", he's
signalling that he wouldn't derail a conversation just because someone was
slightly rude. For me, this means that I wouldn't need to stress over the
wording of every email I send to Linus, because he's not going to care.

I'm not saying that politeness is bad---it's great if you're good at it---but
random contributors _enforcing_ politeness is toxic. Now, if I want to
contribute to the kernel without getting publicly shamed on lkml, I have to be
good at kernel development _and_ at wording things in a way that's acceptable
to people like Sarah. I don't think that's an improvement.

------
14113
Ok, now I _don 't_ want to make this a gender issue, but this article really
can't decide, at one point they say:

>I also got some really awful hate mail that tried to drag my gender in. But I
don’t think this is a gendered topic

then a couple of responses later they say:

> I think that my perspective is somewhat colored by both my gender and my age

Which is it?

~~~
Robin_Message
N.B. I have no dog in this race, so what I say below is meant to be neutral to
the issue.

I don't think there is any contradiction in what she says.

Gender, age, upbringing, education – all those things will influence someone's
perspective on an issue.

But the issue itself is not about gender. Plenty of men don't want communicate
via a lot of "Shut the fuck up, this is shit", and obviously women can swear
and put people down, so it is not a gender issue. It is a style of
communication issue, and the argument is:

Linus: I hate fake politeness and game-playing, so I'm just gonna let rip,
especially on people who waste my time (implictly, to discourage that
strongly).

Sarah: You can be assertive without being rude, and politeness is important in
a professional context.

Her viewpoint might be different, and her gender might influence that, but
that doesn't make it a gender issue.

------
keiferski
I have zero dogs in this fight, so it really doesn't make a difference to me
either way.

But communication isn't some binary thing. You don't need to either be an
abrasive honest asshole OR a slimy political wheedler. It's perfectly possible
to be honest AND polite.

------
anuragramdasan
I wonder how many more articles on the internet are going to be wasted on this
topic.

~~~
14113
Linus swears a lot is basically a "dog bites man" story.

~~~
anuragramdasan
I can't disagree with what Linus said in his mail and the rest of the media
reaction seems like unwanted unnecessary attention towards this issue.

------
peterwwillis
There are several comments about how "corporate culture" is completely
negative. Maybe some are. There's plenty of start-ups with a negative culture
as well. But this is not a big business problem. It's a people problem.

Good communication makes everything better. _EVERYTHING._ It makes people
happier. It helps people understand each other. It lubricates the transition
of ideas into implementation. You can not underestimate how important it is.

Bad communication has the opposite effect. It makes people feel bad. It
creates barriers to prevent people from accomplishing goals. It can spread
negativity like a virus throughout a community.

When you lash out at people, you're creating a few problems. First is that the
person feels insulted. If they are insulted, they won't want to work with you,
and will actively campaign against you, unproductively. Even if you have a
good idea, a person that you're verbally abusing won't give it a second
thought, most often because emotion overrides intelligent thought. Finally, it
stimulates a kind of general negativity in your community that simply spreads
bad feelings and bad attitudes everywhere.

Nobody likes feeling bad. Nobody wants to fight over something stupid. If you
want to get work done, the last thing you need is to be frustrated, and deal
with frustrated people.

Furthermore, insulting someone does not make your point more right. It doesn't
make it less right, either, but it's not helping at all. You might be able to
bully someone into agreeing with you, sure. I've had people argue with me on
every single possible point 'til i've given up out of exasperation. That
doesn't make for good solutions to problems.

If you feel excited, agitated, defensive, or angry, write a letter in response
- but send it to yourself. Wait 10 minutes and read it, and then consider
sending it. Ask yourself if you can edit it down to be more concise as well as
friendly. You'll end up finding people agree with you more this way.

------
Fuxy
Lol Gnome and Canonical a project that never listens to the community and
tries to make their software less customizable and a project which for it size
is contributing a very small amount back to the kernel.

I'll take Linus yelling at me because my code sucks over them just politely
ignoring my contribution and not telling me what i did wrong any day.

------
Shish2k
A method I've found that helps when dealing with all sorts of people -- don't
parse people's output according to _your_ standards, parse it according to
_their_ standards. (It helps when they've published their standards, as Linus
has)

This approach has made it quite easy for me to get along with people from all
sorts of cultures, as well as all types of people within a culture (aspergers
springs to mind) -- where others think "he said something that is offensive in
my culture, he must hate me", I think "he said something which is acceptable
in his own culture, he must think I'm doing ok"; or around my aspergers
friends "she's being rude and insensitive, what a bitch" vs "she's being far
more empathetic than she normally is, she must be trying really hard because
she cares"

------
badmadrad
This could have been handled privately I think. She could have privately said
"Linus, I understand you don't like my code but I would appreciate if you
wouldn't use foul language".It seems to me she played the victim card. But
whether or not Linus cussed at her, her code probably still sucks.

~~~
dlitz
She's the USB3 maintainer, and as far as I know, there's nothing wrong with
her code; Linus never even directed any vitriol at her.

------
leovingi
I really like to read comments that start off with "Linus should do this and
Linus should do that, he should be more accommodating, he should stop
swearing, he shouldn't be so offensive, etc."

NO! It's perfectly fine to bring up an issue like this on a mailing list,
private conversation or anywhere else... What is not fine, is still beating a
dead horse when Linus says that he will not change. Who do these people think
they are to tell someone else to change? Seems rather arrogant and offensive,
doesn't it?

------
jessaustin
Not sure why this was left out of TFA:
[https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/15/329](https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/15/329)

~~~
rdouble
That does seem like quite an overreaction to a mild suggestion from Linus.

~~~
brazzy
You're only seeing the tail end of the conversation. The one that started it
all seems to be this:

[https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/13/132](https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/13/132)

~~~
rdouble
That's interesting but doesn't seem to be what she is responding to. She's
overreacting to comments that are tongue in cheek

 _" Linus Torvalds is advocating for physical intimidation and violence."_ is
her response to goofy comments about the physical size of the patch reviewer.

~~~
brazzy
Well, said goofy comments can be seen as childish attempts to fend off a real
discussion.

------
danmaz74
I don't like abusive comments at all, and I'm sure that an abrasive
environment will keep some good hackers away.

On the other hand, I'm also sure that an environment where you always need to
bite your tongue and force yourself to be very polite, even when you're pissed
off, would keep other good hackers away. Especially among those that do this
for passion, and not because they're paid to.

~~~
DanBC
I'm always baffled by this response.

There are many ways to tell someone that they are wrong without calling them a
fucking idiot or without having to bite your tongue and forcing yourself to be
very polite.

~~~
danmaz74
The thing is that there will always be people who have different thresholds
for what is abusive, what is polite, etc. For example, here in Rome swearing
is very common and isn't usually considered abusive if it isn't directed to a
the person.

Example: "For fucks sake, why the hell did you name that variable X instead of
Y, as our naming conventions say?" is not polite, but it's a critic directed
at what you did, not what you are. On the other hand "I'm beginning to think
that you're never going to be able to follow our naming conventions. You
probably just aren't good enough" sounds polite, but it's really a demeaning
personal attack. What's more abusive?

~~~
talmand
Between your two examples, the second one is by far more demeaning. Cursing is
not always an example of being demeaning to another person. Your first example
has two curses in it, to some just one, but they weren't directly aimed at the
person being spoken to. That's just being rude by using language that many
people may not like to hear in a public space.

If your first example was an abrasive comment directed at the person, such as
"You are a fucking idiot because you can't follow simple naming conventions
that a slightly trained monkey could follow!", then it would be demeaning
towards that person.

I would also say that your second example isn't exactly polite either.

~~~
danmaz74
_Between your two examples, the second one is by far more demeaning._ Exactly.
Being "professional" and being respectful are almost orthogonal.

------
coolcfan
Attitude is enough to be constructive.

When someone says something, replying "F*ck that" is as constructive as
replying "I think there is a problem with your point". And it is really
important when it comes to a critical area.

Being polite? Well, when things don't get messed up, yes. Otherwise, no. A
polite vice-pilot is usually one of the main causes of a crash.

------
throwit1979
Abuse? Important lesson that most people of my generation and prior learned at
about age 4:

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

Is the self-esteem movement of subsequent generations really putting words on
the same level as fists, knives, etc?

~~~
ceejayoz
It's a totally bullshit saying. A kid who's constantly told they're a
worthless piece of shit by their parents is far more likely than average to
wind up with psychological problems. Words have power. We can read great
writing and be deeply moved by it. Why would you think they don't have the
power to harm?

~~~
throwit1979
Because we're in control of our emotions and our reactions. We are not
entirely in control of the laws of physics. Ergo, physical abuse is not even
remotely in the same category as verbal "abuse".

~~~
anon1385
On behalf of the kids you bullied at school I would like to say the following:
fuck you.

~~~
throwit1979
Well, that's a constructive comment. The strange irony of what you said is
that it was exactly the intense bullying I received as a computer nerd in
grade school that helped lead to the understanding that I am in full control
of how others "make me feel".

~~~
obstacle1
It's probable that you had stronger psychological fortitude in the first place
than many people. Not everyone comes to the feel-control realization on their
own, some require intense relearning (therapy, counselling, etc.) to figure it
out. Many people _never_ make the connection.

~~~
ceejayoz
It's also possible that one person's "intense bullying" is another's "gee, I
wish my bullying was that low-grade".

~~~
talmand
Oh, in that case bullying is ok as long as enough people agree that it's low-
grade?

It's also possible that one person's "low-grade bullying" is another's "gee,
I'm glad my bullying is not that bad".

~~~
ceejayoz
Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that without details on the bullying, it's
entirely possible that @throwit1979 has little or no experience with the sort
of viciousness that causes psychological problems for those verbally abused,
resulting in the seemingly ignorant opinion that everyone has the power to
fully control their emotions and behaviour.

------
andyl
I hate corporate style.

Linus has organized thousands to work together to build something amazing. We
all benefit. That's social genius.

------
Codhisattva
After reading the lkml archives I find it hard not to conclude that Linus has
done his best and it's time for him to step down. Linux is just too important
to have such lousy leadership.

~~~
gizmo686
Linux is not a technically impressive project. What makes it impressive is the
fact that it is built, collectively, by many different parties contributing
for their mutual benefit, from tech companies to academic researchers to
hobbyists. The fact that Linux ended up being the kernel that got this massive
social support seems to suggest it has good leadership with good social
skills.

