3 ms·

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 terribl

by 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.

by imgabe 11y ago

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.