5 ms·

Really abusive language. There are ways to communicate his objections to the patches with extremely strong language WITHOUT resorting to abusive language. I wo

Really abusive language. There are ways to communicate his objections to the patches with extremely strong language WITHOUT resorting to abusive language. I wouldn't tolerate anyone treating me like this. There are unseen consequences to a wild tongue.

Kalium 9y ago
Do you think Linus would get a maximally friendly reception if he said: > You clearly mean well. Your heart is in the right place. Thank you so much for all your hard work. There's this weird thing going on where it seems like a bunch of patches experiencing opportunity for improvement are being pushed. These patches also could maybe be better explained. > I don't understand. Can you help me understand, so we can fix our problems together? Again, thank you so much for your hard work! And, incidentally, does the above not just drip insincerity to you? It does to me, and I know how powerful the Dale Carnegie-esqe "complement sandwich" approach is. Linus is justifiably angry at someone screwing with code he is responsible for in ridiculous ways, without any real explanation of why a ridiculous approach was chosen. He's maybe a smidge less than fully satisfied with either point. The person in question really should know better on all points.
- phyzome 9y ago
  You and I both know there's a (large) middle ground.
  - Kalium 9y ago
    Thank you for saying so and well spotted! You're absolutely right. There is very much a large middle ground. Is it possible that a middle ground of politely offering carefully tempered criticism might exist? It certainly does! Is it possible that it could potentially lack the same impact as the approach Linus used? This strikes me as also possible. My experience to date is that polite criticism carefully wrapped to avoid being upsetting in any way to someone emotionally invested in their work is often not received with the intended level of urgency. I'm sure that's just my total ignorance and lack of social graces. Can you please help me understand better?
    - killaken2000 9y ago
      To me you'd get a better response from Linus if your patch wasn't some corporate garbage with ulterior motives. If the person who posted the patch had actually offered a solution that wasn't a pile of crap then there could be a dialog regarding ways to improve.
    - Sean1708 9y ago
      In my experience being aggressive or patronising tends to cause people to become combative which in turn makes them (subconsciously or otherwise) less likely to actually understand the point you're trying to make and more likely to waste time trying to convince you of their point. I find that presenting your case in a calm and relatively neutral way (note not "wrapped to avoid being upsetting in any way ...", that's a false dichotomy in my opinion) tends to be the most effective approach overall.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- ktta 9y ago
  Like it or not, the common expectation is moving towards what you (sarcastically) wrote, and already much farther away than where Linus is at here. Linus gets away with it because he's Linus. And surprisingly, I hear even he has toned down a bit.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
shakna 9y ago
I think you're hitting a cultural barrier. In my country, if someone brought me something terrible, in a professional environment, I would tell them it's bullshit, and go try again. And that would be fine and dandy, and expected. (I'd expect the same treatment of myself. And it has happened.) I get the feeling, that in the US, you can't criticise. You have to use some political language to say you like it, whilst meaning you don't. Linus is Finnish. He says what he means. And it's expected, and entirely acceptable. There are a handful of nations around the world, where saying exactly what you mean is far more valued than trying to preserve whatever emotion someone has invested into their work.
- andreasley 9y ago
  Question is, is it constructive? Does ranting really yield better results than just stating the facts (both short term for fixing the problem and long term for working together)? It might work for Linus on the LKML, but it certainly doesn't for everyone and in all circumstances.
  - shakna 9y ago
    > It might work for Linus on the LKML, but it certainly doesn't for everyone and in all circumstances. Exactly, it's cultural. And, I wouldn't call it ranting. If you look at Linus' famous examples of this, he may first call it bullshit (calling it as it is), and then he goes on to explain why it is, and usually also explains how to polish the turd into what it should have been. It certainly works in my experience, having been on both ends of this sort of communication. It tells you that your quality has fallen well and truly below the expected level of output. But it isn't something held against you either. Because in these same cultures, it is okay to make a mistake, even costly ones. Because they make you better. I've shown you that what you made is crap, and why it is crap. So now I know that you know that sort of thing is crap, and will strive to make something better. And you also know I won't turn around tomorrow and remind you of it, because you're passed it. Probably not even in jest.
- mrmondo 9y ago
  As a Kiwi, living in Australia I totally agree and understand, during code review in ops if something crap - I’ll things like ‘hmm, this looks a bit crap, maybe refactor for improved readability?’ Or ‘this has code smell written all over it, we can’t accept this kind of quality into production’ - I could just as easily say ‘Ross, this is shit - just rewrite it’ and my not so hypothetical Ross in this situation would read that - probably laugh, agree and rewrite it the next day OR ask for clarification stating why he doesn’t think it’s shit. My point is, what matters is the product, the code, the result and the quality there of. The communication around it is entirely based on the relationship and expertise of those around you.
shrewduser 9y ago
people today have such thin skins.

Kalium 9y ago

Do you think Linus would get a maximally friendly reception if he said: > You clearly mean well. Your heart is in the right place. Thank you so much for all your hard work. There's this weird thing going on where it seems like a bunch of patches experiencing opportunity for improvement are being pushed. These patches also could maybe be better explained. > I don't understand. Can you help me understand, so we can fix our problems together? Again, thank you so much for your hard work! And, incidentally, does the above not just drip insincerity to you? It does to me, and I know how powerful the Dale Carnegie-esqe "complement sandwich" approach is. Linus is justifiably angry at someone screwing with code he is responsible for in ridiculous ways, without any real explanation of why a ridiculous approach was chosen. He's maybe a smidge less than fully satisfied with either point. The person in question really should know better on all points.

phyzome 9y ago
You and I both know there's a (large) middle ground.
- Kalium 9y ago
  Thank you for saying so and well spotted! You're absolutely right. There is very much a large middle ground. Is it possible that a middle ground of politely offering carefully tempered criticism might exist? It certainly does! Is it possible that it could potentially lack the same impact as the approach Linus used? This strikes me as also possible. My experience to date is that polite criticism carefully wrapped to avoid being upsetting in any way to someone emotionally invested in their work is often not received with the intended level of urgency. I'm sure that's just my total ignorance and lack of social graces. Can you please help me understand better?
  - killaken2000 9y ago
    To me you'd get a better response from Linus if your patch wasn't some corporate garbage with ulterior motives. If the person who posted the patch had actually offered a solution that wasn't a pile of crap then there could be a dialog regarding ways to improve.
  - Sean1708 9y ago
    In my experience being aggressive or patronising tends to cause people to become combative which in turn makes them (subconsciously or otherwise) less likely to actually understand the point you're trying to make and more likely to waste time trying to convince you of their point. I find that presenting your case in a calm and relatively neutral way (note not "wrapped to avoid being upsetting in any way ...", that's a false dichotomy in my opinion) tends to be the most effective approach overall.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
ktta 9y ago
Like it or not, the common expectation is moving towards what you (sarcastically) wrote, and already much farther away than where Linus is at here. Linus gets away with it because he's Linus. And surprisingly, I hear even he has toned down a bit.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

shakna 9y ago

I think you're hitting a cultural barrier. In my country, if someone brought me something terrible, in a professional environment, I would tell them it's bullshit, and go try again. And that would be fine and dandy, and expected. (I'd expect the same treatment of myself. And it has happened.) I get the feeling, that in the US, you can't criticise. You have to use some political language to say you like it, whilst meaning you don't. Linus is Finnish. He says what he means. And it's expected, and entirely acceptable. There are a handful of nations around the world, where saying exactly what you mean is far more valued than trying to preserve whatever emotion someone has invested into their work.

andreasley 9y ago
Question is, is it constructive? Does ranting really yield better results than just stating the facts (both short term for fixing the problem and long term for working together)? It might work for Linus on the LKML, but it certainly doesn't for everyone and in all circumstances.
- shakna 9y ago
  > It might work for Linus on the LKML, but it certainly doesn't for everyone and in all circumstances. Exactly, it's cultural. And, I wouldn't call it ranting. If you look at Linus' famous examples of this, he may first call it bullshit (calling it as it is), and then he goes on to explain why it is, and usually also explains how to polish the turd into what it should have been. It certainly works in my experience, having been on both ends of this sort of communication. It tells you that your quality has fallen well and truly below the expected level of output. But it isn't something held against you either. Because in these same cultures, it is okay to make a mistake, even costly ones. Because they make you better. I've shown you that what you made is crap, and why it is crap. So now I know that you know that sort of thing is crap, and will strive to make something better. And you also know I won't turn around tomorrow and remind you of it, because you're passed it. Probably not even in jest.
mrmondo 9y ago
As a Kiwi, living in Australia I totally agree and understand, during code review in ops if something crap - I’ll things like ‘hmm, this looks a bit crap, maybe refactor for improved readability?’ Or ‘this has code smell written all over it, we can’t accept this kind of quality into production’ - I could just as easily say ‘Ross, this is shit - just rewrite it’ and my not so hypothetical Ross in this situation would read that - probably laugh, agree and rewrite it the next day OR ask for clarification stating why he doesn’t think it’s shit. My point is, what matters is the product, the code, the result and the quality there of. The communication around it is entirely based on the relationship and expertise of those around you.

shrewduser 9y ago

people today have such thin skins.