5 ms·

>If someone comes around with a new feature to add to Linux, as long as the code is high-quality and has no negative impact elsewhere, he's like to say, "sure,

>If someone comes around with a new feature to add to Linux, as long as the code is high-quality and has no negative impact elsewhere, he's like to say, "sure, put it in!" But in that case it seems like a bit of a strawman that's being attacked. It's not like it's a commonplace attitude to object to high-quality new features with no negative impact.

betenoire 11y ago
you are conflating strongly opinionated wrt to technical issues with the bigger picture of leadership
- smitherfield 11y ago
  Obviously Linus is a good, even excellent leader. I'm taking issue with the notion that he has an unusually "my-vision-isn't-first" philosophy. For a software product that's not designed to fit any one highly-specific use case,* I don't see how you define "vision" as something other than the technical decision-making process in developing the product, or something meaningless. *And creating a large-scale software product that's not tied to a highly-specific use case is itself something that requires forethought aka "vision." Vision isn't a bad thing!
ktRolster 11y ago
It's not like it's a commonplace attitude to object to high-quality new features with no negative impact. Well, if you've ever tried to contribute to open source projects, I think you'll find that it actually is commonplace. For example, I eventually gave up even trying to commit bug fixes to Android, because the pain wasn't worth it.
- fapjacks 11y ago
  This is dead-on. It seems actually the majority of open source projects are driven by politics.
  - gkya 11y ago
    Wherever there's human interaction, there will be politics. On the other hand, even tho the code submitted is of high quality and good, it may have negative social effects on the projects: the feature may be out of the scope, the project owner(s) might want to make sure that the author of the patch will be there to support it because they don't have the expertise, etc. For example if I was maintaining a web server and you submitted a default mime.types file, I'd hesistate to take the patch if you said you wouldn't be able to support it, because I know nothing of MIME (sorry for the silly example).
    - fapjacks 11y ago
      No, it's not silly. What you said makes sense. I am referring however instead to meeting resistance in a project because something I've done or said doesn't line up with the already dug-in political interests that often exist in open source projects. I don't want to name names, but I can think of specific large projects (a couple of household names) that operate in this manner. Argue with a core dev about anything, and your PRs will get closed without any discussion. It sucks.

betenoire 11y ago

you are conflating strongly opinionated wrt to technical issues with the bigger picture of leadership

smitherfield 11y ago
Obviously Linus is a good, even excellent leader. I'm taking issue with the notion that he has an unusually "my-vision-isn't-first" philosophy. For a software product that's not designed to fit any one highly-specific use case,* I don't see how you define "vision" as something other than the technical decision-making process in developing the product, or something meaningless. *And creating a large-scale software product that's not tied to a highly-specific use case is itself something that requires forethought aka "vision." Vision isn't a bad thing!

ktRolster 11y ago

It's not like it's a commonplace attitude to object to high-quality new features with no negative impact. Well, if you've ever tried to contribute to open source projects, I think you'll find that it actually is commonplace. For example, I eventually gave up even trying to commit bug fixes to Android, because the pain wasn't worth it.

fapjacks 11y ago
This is dead-on. It seems actually the majority of open source projects are driven by politics.
- gkya 11y ago
  Wherever there's human interaction, there will be politics. On the other hand, even tho the code submitted is of high quality and good, it may have negative social effects on the projects: the feature may be out of the scope, the project owner(s) might want to make sure that the author of the patch will be there to support it because they don't have the expertise, etc. For example if I was maintaining a web server and you submitted a default mime.types file, I'd hesistate to take the patch if you said you wouldn't be able to support it, because I know nothing of MIME (sorry for the silly example).
  - fapjacks 11y ago
    No, it's not silly. What you said makes sense. I am referring however instead to meeting resistance in a project because something I've done or said doesn't line up with the already dug-in political interests that often exist in open source projects. I don't want to name names, but I can think of specific large projects (a couple of household names) that operate in this manner. Argue with a core dev about anything, and your PRs will get closed without any discussion. It sucks.