4 ms·

I get what you are saying and I agree somewhat, but there are also some lessons to be learned from Linus and things to consider. I especially agree that many le

I get what you are saying and I agree somewhat, but there are also some lessons to be learned from Linus and things to consider. I especially agree that many lesser talented people use his behavior as a justification for their own. I disagree that at least some of his lessons or behavior is detrimental. A good realization in life that many of us have is, "Most people are wrong about most things most of the time." This feels sometimes like it applies by an order of magnitude to programming. I think Linus has a style that deals with this reality head-on and it certainly is not for everyone. One needs to perhaps not be exactly like Linus, but draw some insight from what he does. First, he is bluntly honest with people and there is virtue there. You can argue there is a polite way to be honest, yet sometimes I wonder if I have found it. For huge parts of my career I made my life harder or even self-sabotaged myself by being overly polite to people. I was always assuming (and often still do) that I am wrong and they are right. Further, I give people the benefit of the doubt, try to help them save face in front of others even when wrong, and hear them out before making judgements. It sounds solid and is many ways a healthy attitude for life in general as well as programming. The problem that arises is that people are people. It is true that people will take advantage of you. It is true sometimes if you give them an inch, they will take ten. It is true stupid people often get ahead. More often the answer is simply people don't get the message. You can sit and do a code review with someone, ask them politely to do something, send an email, have a lunch chat, whatever, and the message still does not get across with most programmers. You can say that is bad communication or "my fault," but actually I am speaking more about what I observe rather as a whole than my own personal experience. I have had the privilege of working with best friends for small parts of my career, and even then this was an issue. I can't imagine people with better textbook communication than we did, but maybe what we needed was more Linus-style communication. Sometimes the advice or knowledge is beyond colleagues, and they'll even say, "Yeah, oops, I know you said to do X, but I did Y, my bad." That doesn't help you in project and getting things done, especially if it means minimum someone spends time to fix mistakes they know they should have never made. If you are direct or even a bit abrasive, there is no ambiguity. I grew up in two different cultures side-by-side and traveled the world at various points, living abroad for periods too. Without providing too much PII, I will say that my experience with American culture is that it is very polite, understanding, apologetic (Canadians get this rep.), relatively open, and welcoming. People in American workplaces are on the one hand uptight, more wound up, extremely dishonest, very opportunistic, melodramatic, and a host of other negative traits. On the other hand, Americans are very precise, thoughtful, at least feign listening to you, clever, and methodical. Compare that to another culture that I'd describe as masters of improv, extremely practical, open, honest, and yet sloppy, self-centered, arrogant, overconfident, and disorganized. Neither culture is better than the other, and like Linus, his style just represents one view point of dealing with programmers that is not really better or worse than most others that work. I will say that in the second culture I mention, things get done faster for certain types of work. The openness aspect also really matches a part of what Linus does. People tell you exactly what they think of you. Sometimes it's really hurtful such as telling you that you look "fatter" one day vs. another. They don't think of it as malicious though because from their perspective, they think something is wrong and they are trying to help. By pointing out you look like you are gaining weight, you might be surprised to know what is really going on is they think you might be sick and want to take care of you. They think you might be eating bad and want to feed you better food. Sometimes, sure, they are just being dicks. One can think of what Linus says as just a philosophy that won't work for everyone. Someone telling you exactly what you did wrong and not trying to be diplomatic, cute, or passive aggressive about it ensures the message is clear. It helps you in that you may never make that mistake again. There is no ambiguity hopefully and you either do what he says or decide all of it is not worth your time. Playing games, working people with you do not like, pretending to be nice, and blindly following cultural idiosyncrasies are not things I personally enjoy. Some people need those layers of protection or to live a life with those things, and that's fine I guess and equally OK if I decide not to for myself. I personally cannot work in an environment like most of corporate America anymore or even startups. I need people to be "real" with me, and to learn non-obvious things. I need to be constantly improving, not patted on the back and stabbed in the back by that same person. I want to be stabbed in the front. Of course I realize for many people that might be soul crushing and too much. The problem I think is that people are misinterpreting what is going on here. Using curse words at everyone for the sake of cursing or yelling for the sake of yelling is not the message. Nor is one true style of coding. To me, his message in part is "Be honest, be direct, be specific, and be clear." He has one clear direction for most of his projects and expects people to follow it or go home. IMO, this is what many software projects need - good, unwavering, solid leadership. It usually doesn't work with a pure democracy because no decisions, at least not the heard ones are made. I look at committees like the W3C and others and see how long it takes to produce output, how much fighting, etc. I look at github issues and see the long threads of people trying to fake politeness. No thanks. An ignorant tyrant isn't what is needed either. This is where it gets hard. If there was one style for all projects, we'd use it for all projects. Sometimes democracies maybe do work for small projects. Sometimes the real leader is not the person identified in charge. It takes some luck to have what Linus's projects have and the same leader who is good for one type of project is not good for another. I am 100% certain Linus would fail leading many projects. As for Linus WRT to the software pantheon, you'd be surprised by what I just wrote to note that I don't really care about him. I do not have heroes or believe in hero worship. Moreover, although I use and value Linux, I do not actually like it and I am somewhat unhappy it exists (but happy vs. Windows lets say). I simply use it because it is better for many of my use-cases than what is out there. That won't stop me from pointing out all the legacy warts and wondering if all this time, money, and effort would not have been better spent on a new OS with a new philosophy that did not carry over the ton of anachronisms and design mistakes from Unix and the surrounding community. I do not even consider most of what is in Linux that interesting or innovative, but I am still glad it exists and most of all can easily appreciate the pragmatism of bringing Unix to the home and affordable business world. Anyway, look at things for what they are and separate that from your personal beliefs, and it will help you learn even more.

johan_larson 10y ago
I can see where you are coming from, but the problem with speaking plainly and directly in all cases is that it can run into some pretty hard cultural boundaries. What you say and what people will interpret you as saying can be quite different. I struggled for a long time to understand that, so let me explain. The way this seems to work around here (I'm a Canadian, and I've worked in the US, too) is that it is just fine to be directly critical of others if you are talking downward socially. Boss to subordinate, parent to child, teacher to student, it's just fine. But it's not really OK peer-to-peer or upward. And if you insist on being bluntly critical peer-to-peer or upward, what you are saying carries the additional meaning that the person is a real bozo or messed up really badly, so you are justified in talking down to them, as a sensible knowledgeable person dealing with a fuck-up. That said, it is possible to convey criticism sideways or up, but it requires some social tap-dancing to emphasize that you are only telling the person they are mistaken, not that they are laughably hilariously wrong. The simplest of them is understatement. Compare "That doesn't look right to me. Could you check that it's doing what you expect?" to "No. That's wrong." Next time you are tempted to be bluntly critical, keep this in mind. Your message may be taken as much more severe criticism than you intend. Finally, let me add that this rule is not universal. In some cultures and subcultures, it's much more OK to be directly critical. In others, presumably, it's even less tolerable.
- optionalparens 10y ago
  Yes, in part what I was saying that in some cultures, people are more openly critical. It just is accepted, and no one gets too offended unless they are from another culture. What you are saying about the inability in US/Canadian culture to be upwardly critical or even critical sideways is entirely true. It is also such a silly thing and really makes the workplace unpleasant for many people, more than someone calling my code shit might do. As someone who grew up in multiple cultures and lived in other cultures (Toronto, Canada among a few others), I see all too clearly what it means to cross or run-up against cultural boundaries. I've had to explain to girlfriends (outside my culture) for instance not to get offended by my family (non-American) and the things they will say. Quickly, they come to realize that despite the sometimes harsh sounding words, culturally my very blunt family is much warmer than anything they encountered before. I am also well aware of what criticism means in different cultures and workplaces and I do not struggle with what you described. Your advice about keeping all that in mind is solid from a practical perspective. What I am saying has nothing to do with advising or advocating people to be like Linus or like me. Rather I am saying a few important things - understand the value of bluntness, the reasons behind it, don't be harsh for the sake of being harsh, pretending is silly, and that I am a firm believer in honesty. I do value knowing what the culture norms are, but I try not to let myself be entirely bound in life by them. I have worked long enough and put myself in situations not to work with people who make me play stupid games or diplomatic twister. People should not discount the value of being direct just because it is against their cultural norms. Further, they should see that people from other cultures or other mindsets might have another point of view worth considering. As a result of just being honest, I find in most situations my communication is perceived clearly. I know this because people tell me exactly that and the results seem to match. There was an interesting article recently in the NYT or Washington Post or something else big about the UN Ambassador for Israel and what gets said to him from enemy countries behind close doors (nice things, blunt things) vs. the crazy rhetoric some of the same ambassadors use when addressing what he calls the "public UN." In part, one of the points he was making is that the real work was getting done behind closed doors and the rest was mindless gesturing and show for the people back home in various countries. Regarding Linus specifically, what he says can be taken (and is) sometimes as harshness for the sake of it. That does not mean there is not passion, value, truth, and other things to be found. Notice though that the truly valuable things Linus says in harsh ways are nearly always backed up by facts. If Linus says someone's code is stupid, often he points out exactly why and where instead of wasting time trying to be diplomatic about a bad commit. Taking this to the extreme where you don't provide any reason, feedback, and facts is a big problem. People who do this are not being honest or blunt, they are just being jerks and there lies part of the difference. Perception is important and that's something people forget. I get that people are sensitive, caught up in their culture, yet at some point I would advise people to think with their brains and grow up. People like to do the same thing I described in the UN - gesture using their status, position, titles. That is a dumb thing that stands in the way of getting things done and what many people would perceive as being a good person. If a CIO wanted to fire me because something I said hurt his/her feelings, that's fine with me and not a place I want to work. I would never purposely say hurtful things to someone, at least things that were not true and certainly not without a concrete reason. My view though is a bad prescription for many people, so it's important to also understand that. It's also worth noting that there is a time and a place for criticism, which is not all the time. More often than not, instead of whining and blowing up at someone, the situation will correct itself if no one pretends or lies to provide encouragement otherwise. At some point you may need to still intervene, but it is contextual. I'll never tell someone who is doing a bad job a bunch of positive things to encourage them for the sake of it. Likewise, when they start doing an actual good job, I will thank them for it. Linus perhaps could use a little more positive reinforcement. I guess he's OK with how he is, so be it. I am not afraid to sound insulting here by saying that I think it's a sign of low intelligence if you cannot step outside of yourself at times. Obviously it's hard to do this all the time. People really get so caught up in doing what is expected rather than thinking for themselves. This conjures notions of "sheeple" and living a false narrative. I find these things far more revolting than what anyone could say to me with simple words, other people believe otherwise. I learned long ago there is no way you can make everyone like you, but you can respect everyone at least on basic levels of behavior which does not necessarily mean bowing to their cultural norms and emotions, rather simple, basic humanity. You mention some examples of social tap dancing. While doing consulting, I had to become the master of this and it's rather a necessary skill in this world that I hate. What people are doing by saying things like, "That doesn't look right to me" is usually lying by omission, acting passive aggressive, or simply communicating poorly by garbling the message. To be honest, this sometimes really annoyed me in Canada when people would pass-off passive aggressive behavior as "polite" behavior. Of course my own culture skews this perception and most of the time. My solution was to take my own advice - understand their point of view, don't be offended, and move forward to what's real. Generally, I try to always provide facts, reasons, clarity, and to keep calm. I expect the same back, as it should be. I would rather live a good, honest life and not live in a fantasy world. One semi-effective test is that if you have to ask yourself if you are being an a-hole, you are the a-hole. Surprisingly, I have only actually yelled at anyone seriously once in my career and it was related to something just about anyone would react the same (racism). Being honest and blunt doesn't mean you have to treat people poorly, yell, or go out of your way to be negative. On the contrary, I tend to compliment people more because I am not afraid to be open. I find being open breaks down a lot of important barriers at times. In my personal life, this often leads to a lot of "Thank yous" and being the go-to friend for advice, confessions, problems, and more. In the workplace, people feel comfortable bringing tough and embarrassing problems to me because they know they will get an honest and constructive answer. I often felt crippled at points in my career when I got polite, useless feedback. I can't express how many problems in life or programming I have solved by simply telling it like it is. Quite often, it has nothing to do with dropping f-bombs. Sometimes I just tell someone that I feel stupid and need help, and I am happy when others reciprocate. As you can see, this is probably one area where Linus and I differ, but I can't help but laugh at the reactions he gets from ridiculous people that don't want to admit their own faults. I have many faults and I freely admit them because I want help. If I had to actually give a piece of advice here, it would be to just be yourself and figure out what you value. Everything you do should be working towards that. If someone stands in your way, don't run them over, just put yourself in a better position - find a new job, move, cut them off, be the better person, prove your points with facts, do whatever you need to get past it while staying a good person. Lying to yourself is a hard thing. Being critical is not being cynical, it is being honest if you approach it with a clear mind. This is all often at odds with tech culture and it has admittedly hurt me in a few cases. But I feel alright with myself and that is success for me.

johan_larson 10y ago

I can see where you are coming from, but the problem with speaking plainly and directly in all cases is that it can run into some pretty hard cultural boundaries. What you say and what people will interpret you as saying can be quite different. I struggled for a long time to understand that, so let me explain. The way this seems to work around here (I'm a Canadian, and I've worked in the US, too) is that it is just fine to be directly critical of others if you are talking downward socially. Boss to subordinate, parent to child, teacher to student, it's just fine. But it's not really OK peer-to-peer or upward. And if you insist on being bluntly critical peer-to-peer or upward, what you are saying carries the additional meaning that the person is a real bozo or messed up really badly, so you are justified in talking down to them, as a sensible knowledgeable person dealing with a fuck-up. That said, it is possible to convey criticism sideways or up, but it requires some social tap-dancing to emphasize that you are only telling the person they are mistaken, not that they are laughably hilariously wrong. The simplest of them is understatement. Compare "That doesn't look right to me. Could you check that it's doing what you expect?" to "No. That's wrong." Next time you are tempted to be bluntly critical, keep this in mind. Your message may be taken as much more severe criticism than you intend. Finally, let me add that this rule is not universal. In some cultures and subcultures, it's much more OK to be directly critical. In others, presumably, it's even less tolerable.

optionalparens 10y ago
Yes, in part what I was saying that in some cultures, people are more openly critical. It just is accepted, and no one gets too offended unless they are from another culture. What you are saying about the inability in US/Canadian culture to be upwardly critical or even critical sideways is entirely true. It is also such a silly thing and really makes the workplace unpleasant for many people, more than someone calling my code shit might do. As someone who grew up in multiple cultures and lived in other cultures (Toronto, Canada among a few others), I see all too clearly what it means to cross or run-up against cultural boundaries. I've had to explain to girlfriends (outside my culture) for instance not to get offended by my family (non-American) and the things they will say. Quickly, they come to realize that despite the sometimes harsh sounding words, culturally my very blunt family is much warmer than anything they encountered before. I am also well aware of what criticism means in different cultures and workplaces and I do not struggle with what you described. Your advice about keeping all that in mind is solid from a practical perspective. What I am saying has nothing to do with advising or advocating people to be like Linus or like me. Rather I am saying a few important things - understand the value of bluntness, the reasons behind it, don't be harsh for the sake of being harsh, pretending is silly, and that I am a firm believer in honesty. I do value knowing what the culture norms are, but I try not to let myself be entirely bound in life by them. I have worked long enough and put myself in situations not to work with people who make me play stupid games or diplomatic twister. People should not discount the value of being direct just because it is against their cultural norms. Further, they should see that people from other cultures or other mindsets might have another point of view worth considering. As a result of just being honest, I find in most situations my communication is perceived clearly. I know this because people tell me exactly that and the results seem to match. There was an interesting article recently in the NYT or Washington Post or something else big about the UN Ambassador for Israel and what gets said to him from enemy countries behind close doors (nice things, blunt things) vs. the crazy rhetoric some of the same ambassadors use when addressing what he calls the "public UN." In part, one of the points he was making is that the real work was getting done behind closed doors and the rest was mindless gesturing and show for the people back home in various countries. Regarding Linus specifically, what he says can be taken (and is) sometimes as harshness for the sake of it. That does not mean there is not passion, value, truth, and other things to be found. Notice though that the truly valuable things Linus says in harsh ways are nearly always backed up by facts. If Linus says someone's code is stupid, often he points out exactly why and where instead of wasting time trying to be diplomatic about a bad commit. Taking this to the extreme where you don't provide any reason, feedback, and facts is a big problem. People who do this are not being honest or blunt, they are just being jerks and there lies part of the difference. Perception is important and that's something people forget. I get that people are sensitive, caught up in their culture, yet at some point I would advise people to think with their brains and grow up. People like to do the same thing I described in the UN - gesture using their status, position, titles. That is a dumb thing that stands in the way of getting things done and what many people would perceive as being a good person. If a CIO wanted to fire me because something I said hurt his/her feelings, that's fine with me and not a place I want to work. I would never purposely say hurtful things to someone, at least things that were not true and certainly not without a concrete reason. My view though is a bad prescription for many people, so it's important to also understand that. It's also worth noting that there is a time and a place for criticism, which is not all the time. More often than not, instead of whining and blowing up at someone, the situation will correct itself if no one pretends or lies to provide encouragement otherwise. At some point you may need to still intervene, but it is contextual. I'll never tell someone who is doing a bad job a bunch of positive things to encourage them for the sake of it. Likewise, when they start doing an actual good job, I will thank them for it. Linus perhaps could use a little more positive reinforcement. I guess he's OK with how he is, so be it. I am not afraid to sound insulting here by saying that I think it's a sign of low intelligence if you cannot step outside of yourself at times. Obviously it's hard to do this all the time. People really get so caught up in doing what is expected rather than thinking for themselves. This conjures notions of "sheeple" and living a false narrative. I find these things far more revolting than what anyone could say to me with simple words, other people believe otherwise. I learned long ago there is no way you can make everyone like you, but you can respect everyone at least on basic levels of behavior which does not necessarily mean bowing to their cultural norms and emotions, rather simple, basic humanity. You mention some examples of social tap dancing. While doing consulting, I had to become the master of this and it's rather a necessary skill in this world that I hate. What people are doing by saying things like, "That doesn't look right to me" is usually lying by omission, acting passive aggressive, or simply communicating poorly by garbling the message. To be honest, this sometimes really annoyed me in Canada when people would pass-off passive aggressive behavior as "polite" behavior. Of course my own culture skews this perception and most of the time. My solution was to take my own advice - understand their point of view, don't be offended, and move forward to what's real. Generally, I try to always provide facts, reasons, clarity, and to keep calm. I expect the same back, as it should be. I would rather live a good, honest life and not live in a fantasy world. One semi-effective test is that if you have to ask yourself if you are being an a-hole, you are the a-hole. Surprisingly, I have only actually yelled at anyone seriously once in my career and it was related to something just about anyone would react the same (racism). Being honest and blunt doesn't mean you have to treat people poorly, yell, or go out of your way to be negative. On the contrary, I tend to compliment people more because I am not afraid to be open. I find being open breaks down a lot of important barriers at times. In my personal life, this often leads to a lot of "Thank yous" and being the go-to friend for advice, confessions, problems, and more. In the workplace, people feel comfortable bringing tough and embarrassing problems to me because they know they will get an honest and constructive answer. I often felt crippled at points in my career when I got polite, useless feedback. I can't express how many problems in life or programming I have solved by simply telling it like it is. Quite often, it has nothing to do with dropping f-bombs. Sometimes I just tell someone that I feel stupid and need help, and I am happy when others reciprocate. As you can see, this is probably one area where Linus and I differ, but I can't help but laugh at the reactions he gets from ridiculous people that don't want to admit their own faults. I have many faults and I freely admit them because I want help. If I had to actually give a piece of advice here, it would be to just be yourself and figure out what you value. Everything you do should be working towards that. If someone stands in your way, don't run them over, just put yourself in a better position - find a new job, move, cut them off, be the better person, prove your points with facts, do whatever you need to get past it while staying a good person. Lying to yourself is a hard thing. Being critical is not being cynical, it is being honest if you approach it with a clear mind. This is all often at odds with tech culture and it has admittedly hurt me in a few cases. But I feel alright with myself and that is success for me.