4 ms·

It's possible that it might be appropriate for the leader of the Linux kernel but for other programmers and leaders - don't model your own behaviour after this.

by hoodoof 11y ago

It's possible that it might be appropriate for the leader of the Linux kernel but for other programmers and leaders - don't model your own behaviour after this. You're not Linus. You're not Steve Jobs either - also known for his abrasive style. Firm but fair kindness, diplomacy and a lead-by-example approach are the keys to leading a technical development effort over the long term. Do make tough decisions, do hold people to account, do work hard, do expect the best from other people, do get rid of problem team members and do address under-performers, but all that can still be done with patience, kindness and diplomacy. I made the mistake in my early career years of modelling my leadership style on Bill Gates also known for the same abrasive, no holds barred style. It doesn't work.

moron4hire 11y ago
Yeah, you get to act like this when you're a popular iconoclast, having surrounded yourself with sycophants. Everyone else in normal scenarios cannot afford to do this.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
golemotron 11y ago
People go out of their way to condemn his style. The reason why is because it is the complete antithesis of PC culture. It wouldn't be an oversimplification to call his leadership style a "Dad" style: "it's not about you, it's about the system" versus the "Mom" style that makes nurturing paramount "if we make everyone feel good we can all win." Both work. No seriously both work. It's just politically incorrect to run Dad-style projects or companies now.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - golemotron 11y ago
    Passive voice. Who are you speaking for?
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  I like how everyone here is discussing the rhetorical style and ignoring the fact that his rejection of kernel debuggers is batshit insane and idiotic, which is the main topic.
  - edejong 11y ago
    He's acting as a teacher in this email (like in many situations) and trying to explain that, in a deterministic and transparent system, the usage (and necessity) of a debugger is a clear signal of the inadequacy of the design. If you have to use a debugger, you should go back to the drawing board! You've made a fundamental design flaw in your abstractions and following a poor instruction pointer will not help you find that flaw. It's kind of ironic to see that, nowadays, with the increased necessity for concurrent and multi-agent systems, a debugger becomes even more obsolete and cumbersome, since you're often fighting a race-condition or some kind of resource starvation. Personally, I see his rhetoric in this email as highly intelligent community leadership in which Linus is arguing for better systems design (inside, or outside of the Linux kernel).
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      And yet, hardened Linux developers like Al Viro will rant all about the awful systems design inside and outside of the Linux kernel constantly (cgroups and udev are frequent targets of his). We can thus extrapolate that a lack of a kernel debugger has not reduced leaky abstractions in any measurable way. At best we can only speculate in counterfactuals. Solaris has a kernel debugger and a more concise architecture.
      - edejong 11y ago
        Linus argument is that use of debuggers may contribute to bad design, but he does not prohibit their use. As Linus was not the core contributor to cgroups (Google was) and kernel debugging certainly was available when cgroups was first implemented, I would say the opposite might actually be true. Personally, I think the UNIX OS design is a poor fit for the requirements of Docker et al. The problems with cgroups should be a signal that it breaks the fundamental design assumptions of Linux (doing fundamental resource separation and multi-ring security in a monolithic kernel).
- joslin01 11y ago
  Would it be fair to say that the best leader is a hybrid of mom & dad style? Or would you say that the best leaders oftentimes fall into just one camp?
cbetz 11y ago
How can you make the claim "It doesn't work". By what metrics? Both Linus and Bill Gates were extremely successful. Are you claiming they could be more successful with a softer style? I have another conundrum. Assume both these individuals would have to to do some real amount of work to change their personal style. This translates to time spent not doing the other things they are perhaps excellent at. Wrapping your argument in nice words all the time is actually really hard. It takes time. Frankly it is not always necessary depending on the relationships between individuals. Let's say you and I start an open source project and we both find it really hard to say things nicely, but we have X hours a day to contribute and get stuff done. So I propose to you: "Hey, let's get in the habit of saying what we feel. We'll remember and accept that humans aren't always rational and we're going to hurt each others feelings sometimes. We'll remember that we all say and do dumb things all the time, so it's no big deal to call somebody out for it. But we think this will save us time in the long run, since we suck at sugar coating our words and feelings." What stops us from building a highly successful project of like-minded individuals? What do we lose when somebody comes along and says "hey, you have to be nice now!"? Should we refuse to work with such people? These are real questions and I don't think they have clear answers.

by hoodoof 11y ago

moron4hire 11y ago

Yeah, you get to act like this when you're a popular iconoclast, having surrounded yourself with sycophants. Everyone else in normal scenarios cannot afford to do this.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

golemotron 11y ago

People go out of their way to condemn his style. The reason why is because it is the complete antithesis of PC culture. It wouldn't be an oversimplification to call his leadership style a "Dad" style: "it's not about you, it's about the system" versus the "Mom" style that makes nurturing paramount "if we make everyone feel good we can all win." Both work. No seriously both work. It's just politically incorrect to run Dad-style projects or companies now.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- golemotron 11y ago
  Passive voice. Who are you speaking for?
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
I like how everyone here is discussing the rhetorical style and ignoring the fact that his rejection of kernel debuggers is batshit insane and idiotic, which is the main topic.
- edejong 11y ago
  He's acting as a teacher in this email (like in many situations) and trying to explain that, in a deterministic and transparent system, the usage (and necessity) of a debugger is a clear signal of the inadequacy of the design. If you have to use a debugger, you should go back to the drawing board! You've made a fundamental design flaw in your abstractions and following a poor instruction pointer will not help you find that flaw. It's kind of ironic to see that, nowadays, with the increased necessity for concurrent and multi-agent systems, a debugger becomes even more obsolete and cumbersome, since you're often fighting a race-condition or some kind of resource starvation. Personally, I see his rhetoric in this email as highly intelligent community leadership in which Linus is arguing for better systems design (inside, or outside of the Linux kernel).
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    And yet, hardened Linux developers like Al Viro will rant all about the awful systems design inside and outside of the Linux kernel constantly (cgroups and udev are frequent targets of his). We can thus extrapolate that a lack of a kernel debugger has not reduced leaky abstractions in any measurable way. At best we can only speculate in counterfactuals. Solaris has a kernel debugger and a more concise architecture.
    - edejong 11y ago
      Linus argument is that use of debuggers may contribute to bad design, but he does not prohibit their use. As Linus was not the core contributor to cgroups (Google was) and kernel debugging certainly was available when cgroups was first implemented, I would say the opposite might actually be true. Personally, I think the UNIX OS design is a poor fit for the requirements of Docker et al. The problems with cgroups should be a signal that it breaks the fundamental design assumptions of Linux (doing fundamental resource separation and multi-ring security in a monolithic kernel).
joslin01 11y ago
Would it be fair to say that the best leader is a hybrid of mom & dad style? Or would you say that the best leaders oftentimes fall into just one camp?

cbetz 11y ago

How can you make the claim "It doesn't work". By what metrics? Both Linus and Bill Gates were extremely successful. Are you claiming they could be more successful with a softer style? I have another conundrum. Assume both these individuals would have to to do some real amount of work to change their personal style. This translates to time spent not doing the other things they are perhaps excellent at. Wrapping your argument in nice words all the time is actually really hard. It takes time. Frankly it is not always necessary depending on the relationships between individuals. Let's say you and I start an open source project and we both find it really hard to say things nicely, but we have X hours a day to contribute and get stuff done. So I propose to you: "Hey, let's get in the habit of saying what we feel. We'll remember and accept that humans aren't always rational and we're going to hurt each others feelings sometimes. We'll remember that we all say and do dumb things all the time, so it's no big deal to call somebody out for it. But we think this will save us time in the long run, since we suck at sugar coating our words and feelings." What stops us from building a highly successful project of like-minded individuals? What do we lose when somebody comes along and says "hey, you have to be nice now!"? Should we refuse to work with such people? These are real questions and I don't think they have clear answers.