3 ms·

People are incredibly fucking thin-skinned. A few choice cuss words can get across points than paragraphs of inoffensive wishy-washy bullshit will obfuscate.

People are incredibly fucking thin-skinned. A few choice cuss words can get across points than paragraphs of inoffensive wishy-washy bullshit will obfuscate. And righteous anger cuts to the heart of a problem like Alexander through the Gordian knot. If you can't point at shit, and say that it is shit, and it needs to be done better, then I don't want to work with you, or depend on your outputs. I am glad that there is someone like Linus helming the ship; Jobs was not different in kind, nor Gates in his day. It's a shame that we don't have more strong, extremely competent stewards like him.

m90 8y ago
Zzz...
pmiller2 8y ago
You are clearly in the author’s group 3: people who say we should just tolerate this sort of thing. In that spirit, I could simply say you’re full of shit and move on, fully knowing you won’t be convinced by anything I say, but I won’t do that. Instead, I offer you this: the revised email is half the length of the original, and still makes the case as strongly as the first based on the logical arguments. How would you rewrite it? I don’t mind being told “no, don’t do that; it’s stupid,” provided it’s backed up with logic and an alternative way to proceed. In this case, the second email does this (the alternative way to proceed being just don’t merge the changes, or reword the commit messages). I have no problem with cursing. I probably curse a little too much, in fact, and here it clearly gets in the way of the message, which is, in both cases “I can live with doing this, but your reasoning as to why we should is wrong.” Or, more bluntly, “no, don’t do this for these stupid reasons.” What I do have a problem with is gratuitous abuse of someone who’s attempting to make a positive contribution and has, apparently, submitted a reasonable pull request.
- na85 8y ago
  I categorically disagree that the revised email makes the same case. The first sentence that Linus wrote indicates that he finds it questionable, but the revised statement puts words into Linus' mouth: "this looks ok but..." That's not even the same sentiment. Okay versus Questionable. Not sure why the Tone Police feel it's necessary to do this.
  - pmiller2 8y ago
    He clearly doesn’t have a problem with the code, otherwise he wouldn’t say he could “live with” the changes. This portion could be better worded to convey the “code is ok, but the rationale is flawed” message. How would you rewrite it?
    - na85 8y ago
      Au contraire I think it is patently obvious that he does have a problem with the code as written, otherwise why spend the energy to rebut it so vigorously?
      - gary_bernhardt 8y ago
        He wasn't rebutting the code; he was rebutting the claims about following the C standard, which were made separate from the code. You missed this because its' buried in all of Linus' ranting. Linus merged these changes a few minutes later with no further discussion.

m90 8y ago

Zzz...

pmiller2 8y ago

You are clearly in the author’s group 3: people who say we should just tolerate this sort of thing. In that spirit, I could simply say you’re full of shit and move on, fully knowing you won’t be convinced by anything I say, but I won’t do that. Instead, I offer you this: the revised email is half the length of the original, and still makes the case as strongly as the first based on the logical arguments. How would you rewrite it? I don’t mind being told “no, don’t do that; it’s stupid,” provided it’s backed up with logic and an alternative way to proceed. In this case, the second email does this (the alternative way to proceed being just don’t merge the changes, or reword the commit messages). I have no problem with cursing. I probably curse a little too much, in fact, and here it clearly gets in the way of the message, which is, in both cases “I can live with doing this, but your reasoning as to why we should is wrong.” Or, more bluntly, “no, don’t do this for these stupid reasons.” What I do have a problem with is gratuitous abuse of someone who’s attempting to make a positive contribution and has, apparently, submitted a reasonable pull request.

na85 8y ago
I categorically disagree that the revised email makes the same case. The first sentence that Linus wrote indicates that he finds it questionable, but the revised statement puts words into Linus' mouth: "this looks ok but..." That's not even the same sentiment. Okay versus Questionable. Not sure why the Tone Police feel it's necessary to do this.
- pmiller2 8y ago
  He clearly doesn’t have a problem with the code, otherwise he wouldn’t say he could “live with” the changes. This portion could be better worded to convey the “code is ok, but the rationale is flawed” message. How would you rewrite it?
  - na85 8y ago
    Au contraire I think it is patently obvious that he does have a problem with the code as written, otherwise why spend the energy to rebut it so vigorously?
    - gary_bernhardt 8y ago
      He wasn't rebutting the code; he was rebutting the claims about following the C standard, which were made separate from the code. You missed this because its' buried in all of Linus' ranting. Linus merged these changes a few minutes later with no further discussion.