5 ms·

The Linux kernel development culture has always been like this, so it is a bit strange that foul language using bunch of developers turning out to be foul langu

The Linux kernel development culture has always been like this, so it is a bit strange that foul language using bunch of developers turning out to be foul language using bunch of developers is a shock for someone. It suits for some and sure will annoy/scare some. As far as I know bashing is not about the person, but it is about the quality of idea or implementation. Is it right? Maybe. Maybe not. Of course there is this line, where some people are doing it in professional context and are expecting it to be... professional. In every level. That I find a false expectation, as LKML and this "terrible" culture has a public track record of a few decades. Of course not everyone can choose what kind of work they do and which projects they attend to, but someone working in IT corporations probably isn't one of those unfortunates. I don't find it amusing, that someone's feelings have been hurt. But on the other hand I find it a viable alternative for all that wasted time on correctness, when someone's idea or implementation is terrible, but no-one can tell it directly, that this really is crap.

imgabe 11y ago
I don't have much experience with the Linux community, but it seems there should be a difference between telling someone their idea or implementation is terrible and telling them that they are terrible. It is possible to give honest, direct feedback without personally attacking someone, and I don't see why it would be necessary or desirable to include personal attacks in a technical discussion. If an idea is technically bad, it should be sufficient to point out the technical flaws without defaming the character of the contributor.
- jzzskijj 11y ago
  Yes, I don't argue with that. But, saying "this dual locking implementation we're looking at is definitely written by a retard"* is still 99% more about the quality of the implementation than about the person who did it. *) quote made up
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    No its not. There is no constructive criticism in that comment, it was 100% abusive. And what did you gain by calling someone a "retard"? The entire reason for saying that was to make the commenter look good by making someone else look bad. Torvalds, ironically, doesn't encourage this sort of thing. Unfortunately, he is also an offender - the "shut the fuck up Mauro" incident comes to mind.
    - jzzskijj 11y ago
      I'd say this made up quote started with constructive criticism and what ever came after that could be ignored. Was it necessary? No.
      - chris_wot 11y ago
        What specifically could I action from that one sentence? All it told me was it was a double-locking implementation. But if I was the original developer, I'd know that.
  - imgabe 11y ago
    Sure, but it's also extremely unhelpful. I'm sure it makes the person writing it feel superior, but it doesn't actually convey any useful information. "this dual locking implementation creates a race condition under circumstances X, Y, and Z" would be more accurate and probably more successful in achieving the purported goal of having a working dual locking implementation. Still direct, but addresses the technical problem without insulting the contributor.
coldpie 11y ago
It's a false dichotomy. You can give honest reviews and tell people they're wasting their time without resorting to "Shut up, Mauro. And I don't _ever_ want to hear that kind of obvious garbage and idiocy from a kernel maintainer again. Seriously." https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/23/75 https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/23/75
- HLRoku 11y ago
  Wow seeing a clear example yourself really just gets the picture across. I was giving some credence to the fact that these people were just blunt to each other, but this is just toxic and hostile. If it were just blunt honesty their excuses might be far more credible.
  - digi_owl 11y ago
    Don't read that one email, read the whole exchange. Also, one rule Torvalds holds kernel development to is "do not break user space". If a kernel patch exposes an API, the behavior of said API is fixed from that point onwards. If a subsequent patch change the behavior, thus causing something in user space to error out, said patch is broken. All this should be known to the person Torvalds is talking to, having doing this for some time. Yet when the issue is pointed out, he tries to pass the blame to user space.
- Arnt 11y ago
  I read it, and I see that Linus was right as usual: The patch in question did break userspace and did behave in ways POSIX says the kernel shouldn't ever do. It's a pity that some others have adopted Linus' loudness without also adopting his habits of grasping the issue and being right. Linus says "don't break the posix rules%@#$!$@#$", never "do as I prefer$#@$@#$!@#$". There's a big, big difference.
  - raverbashing 11y ago
    This What would be the general level of frustration if something fundamental was broken? More importantly, how frustrating it is to get back to the same kinds of problems? (I remember a similar issue with ACPI where the kernel got into a 'fix/break/fix' loop until they decided to change the approach and not accept breakages anymore)
kevingadd 11y ago
This is totally not about 'shock' and 'hurt feelings'. This is about active contributors to core kernel functionality being continually alienated and harassed by their colleagues.
Gracana 11y ago
> The Linux kernel development culture has always been like this, so it is a bit strange that foul language using bunch of developers turning out to be foul language using bunch of developers is a shock for someone. It suits for some and sure will annoy/scare some. As far as I know bashing is not about the person, but it is about the quality of idea or implementation. I'm not sure where this is coming from. Sarah's grievance is explicitly about people-bashing, not blunt technical criticism. And there's no hint of surprise here... She's been around quite a while, she saw what the community was like and tried to make things better, and eventually found it to be futile and draining, so she's leaving.
- jzzskijj 11y ago
  Changing the behavior of a community to your liking, that existed long before you came in, is usually deemed to fail.
  - Gracana 11y ago
    Can you expand on that? Nobody would argue that it isn't hard to change the status quo, so I assume that's not all you're saying. You seem to be hinting that you think what she was trying to do was wrong, but I'd rather you explain why (or if) you feel that way than have me put words in your mouth.
    - jzzskijj 11y ago
      I was actually just stating the obvious.
  - EmanueleAina 11y ago
    You're describing how to maintain the status quo (which is simpler than any other option, indeed). Changing the behaviour of communities is instead how progress works (well, also regression, but I hope you got the point).
RogerL 11y ago
"You god damned idiot, how could you write something so full of logic errors, you should have been aborted". vs "I disagree. In paragraph 3 you state X, but in paragraph 4 you contradict yourself with Y...." The latter is direct, but not personal, and fully communicates the point. It is also shorter, and thus less of a time waste than typing out insults. There is absolutely nothing stopping the Linux community from being direct, for evaluating technical solutions. You can do all of that without being vicious and being personal.
- zxcvcxz 11y ago
  > "You god damned idiot, how could you write something so full of logic errors, you should have been aborted". It's funny that you need to embellish a quote so much to push your political narrative.
  - dajohnson89 11y ago
    What political narrative is being pushed here?
    - zxcvcxz 11y ago
      The narrative that a large segment of society consists of abusers (racist, misogynists, sexists, etc) and that it's a serious problem that needs to be dealt with, when the reality is that these people make up a very small percentage of society. Part of being free is having the freedom to make bad decisions.
      - EmanueleAina 11y ago
        The other part is the good sense of not taking them (I mean, they are "bad decision", they should be avoided by definition).
  - apetresc 11y ago
    I mean, it's a pretty accurate paraphrasing (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/7/80 https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/7/80): > Of course, I'd also suggest that whoever was the genius who thought it > was a good idea to read things ONE FCKING BYTE AT A TIME with system > calls for each byte should be retroactively aborted. Who the fck does > idiotic things like that? How did they noty die as babies, considering > that they were likely too stupid to find a tit to suck on?

imgabe 11y ago

I don't have much experience with the Linux community, but it seems there should be a difference between telling someone their idea or implementation is terrible and telling them that they are terrible. It is possible to give honest, direct feedback without personally attacking someone, and I don't see why it would be necessary or desirable to include personal attacks in a technical discussion. If an idea is technically bad, it should be sufficient to point out the technical flaws without defaming the character of the contributor.

jzzskijj 11y ago
Yes, I don't argue with that. But, saying "this dual locking implementation we're looking at is definitely written by a retard"* is still 99% more about the quality of the implementation than about the person who did it. *) quote made up
- chris_wot 11y ago
  No its not. There is no constructive criticism in that comment, it was 100% abusive. And what did you gain by calling someone a "retard"? The entire reason for saying that was to make the commenter look good by making someone else look bad. Torvalds, ironically, doesn't encourage this sort of thing. Unfortunately, he is also an offender - the "shut the fuck up Mauro" incident comes to mind.
  - jzzskijj 11y ago
    I'd say this made up quote started with constructive criticism and what ever came after that could be ignored. Was it necessary? No.
    - chris_wot 11y ago
      What specifically could I action from that one sentence? All it told me was it was a double-locking implementation. But if I was the original developer, I'd know that.
- imgabe 11y ago
  Sure, but it's also extremely unhelpful. I'm sure it makes the person writing it feel superior, but it doesn't actually convey any useful information. "this dual locking implementation creates a race condition under circumstances X, Y, and Z" would be more accurate and probably more successful in achieving the purported goal of having a working dual locking implementation. Still direct, but addresses the technical problem without insulting the contributor.

coldpie 11y ago

It's a false dichotomy. You can give honest reviews and tell people they're wasting their time without resorting to "Shut up, Mauro. And I don't _ever_ want to hear that kind of obvious garbage and idiocy from a kernel maintainer again. Seriously." https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/23/75 https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/23/75

HLRoku 11y ago
Wow seeing a clear example yourself really just gets the picture across. I was giving some credence to the fact that these people were just blunt to each other, but this is just toxic and hostile. If it were just blunt honesty their excuses might be far more credible.
- digi_owl 11y ago
  Don't read that one email, read the whole exchange. Also, one rule Torvalds holds kernel development to is "do not break user space". If a kernel patch exposes an API, the behavior of said API is fixed from that point onwards. If a subsequent patch change the behavior, thus causing something in user space to error out, said patch is broken. All this should be known to the person Torvalds is talking to, having doing this for some time. Yet when the issue is pointed out, he tries to pass the blame to user space.
Arnt 11y ago
I read it, and I see that Linus was right as usual: The patch in question did break userspace and did behave in ways POSIX says the kernel shouldn't ever do. It's a pity that some others have adopted Linus' loudness without also adopting his habits of grasping the issue and being right. Linus says "don't break the posix rules%@#$!$@#$", never "do as I prefer$#@$@#$!@#$". There's a big, big difference.
- raverbashing 11y ago
  This What would be the general level of frustration if something fundamental was broken? More importantly, how frustrating it is to get back to the same kinds of problems? (I remember a similar issue with ACPI where the kernel got into a 'fix/break/fix' loop until they decided to change the approach and not accept breakages anymore)

kevingadd 11y ago

This is totally not about 'shock' and 'hurt feelings'. This is about active contributors to core kernel functionality being continually alienated and harassed by their colleagues.

Gracana 11y ago

> The Linux kernel development culture has always been like this, so it is a bit strange that foul language using bunch of developers turning out to be foul language using bunch of developers is a shock for someone. It suits for some and sure will annoy/scare some. As far as I know bashing is not about the person, but it is about the quality of idea or implementation. I'm not sure where this is coming from. Sarah's grievance is explicitly about people-bashing, not blunt technical criticism. And there's no hint of surprise here... She's been around quite a while, she saw what the community was like and tried to make things better, and eventually found it to be futile and draining, so she's leaving.

jzzskijj 11y ago
Changing the behavior of a community to your liking, that existed long before you came in, is usually deemed to fail.
- Gracana 11y ago
  Can you expand on that? Nobody would argue that it isn't hard to change the status quo, so I assume that's not all you're saying. You seem to be hinting that you think what she was trying to do was wrong, but I'd rather you explain why (or if) you feel that way than have me put words in your mouth.
  - jzzskijj 11y ago
    I was actually just stating the obvious.
- EmanueleAina 11y ago
  You're describing how to maintain the status quo (which is simpler than any other option, indeed). Changing the behaviour of communities is instead how progress works (well, also regression, but I hope you got the point).

RogerL 11y ago

"You god damned idiot, how could you write something so full of logic errors, you should have been aborted". vs "I disagree. In paragraph 3 you state X, but in paragraph 4 you contradict yourself with Y...." The latter is direct, but not personal, and fully communicates the point. It is also shorter, and thus less of a time waste than typing out insults. There is absolutely nothing stopping the Linux community from being direct, for evaluating technical solutions. You can do all of that without being vicious and being personal.

zxcvcxz 11y ago
> "You god damned idiot, how could you write something so full of logic errors, you should have been aborted". It's funny that you need to embellish a quote so much to push your political narrative.
- dajohnson89 11y ago
  What political narrative is being pushed here?
  - zxcvcxz 11y ago
    The narrative that a large segment of society consists of abusers (racist, misogynists, sexists, etc) and that it's a serious problem that needs to be dealt with, when the reality is that these people make up a very small percentage of society. Part of being free is having the freedom to make bad decisions.
    - EmanueleAina 11y ago
      The other part is the good sense of not taking them (I mean, they are "bad decision", they should be avoided by definition).
- apetresc 11y ago
  I mean, it's a pretty accurate paraphrasing (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/7/80 https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/7/80): > Of course, I'd also suggest that whoever was the genius who thought it > was a good idea to read things ONE FCKING BYTE AT A TIME with system > calls for each byte should be retroactively aborted. Who the fck does > idiotic things like that? How did they noty die as babies, considering > that they were likely too stupid to find a tit to suck on?