4 ms·

If Linus had written the reworded email the author is proposing here, this author wouldn't be writing this blog post, and we wouldn't be clicking it on HN and r

If Linus had written the reworded email the author is proposing here, this author wouldn't be writing this blog post, and we wouldn't be clicking it on HN and reading the contents of Linus' points. As to the actual detail of the author's proposed rewordings: > I'm not talking about the changes themselves - I can live with them. But the _rationale_ is pure and utter garbage, and dangerously so. becomes > These changes look OK, but I'm not sure about the rationale. This rewording imparts an entirely different message to the original. If I read the latter, as a programmer, I would get the impression that Linus thought the commit was "OK". He clearly did not. At no point in his email does he indicate that anything is "OK" about this commit in any way. > The caps in "AND STANDARD" is another way to indicate frustration [...] None of these carry any meaning about the technical problem; they're just expressions of anger. [...] Most critically, it's possible to describe the danger of this code without It's important to point out that the author says "it's possible to describe the danger of this code without". He's describing danger but his rewording removes all emphasis, urgency or import in the tone of the email. > If you were in the "I'm afraid that being nicer would hurt Linux" group, do you think that this email is worse? Yes. I'm sorry, but while the argument that Linus makes excessive use of ad hominem and is disrespectul is a valid one, and he could/should temper that, this example is a failure to demonstrate how it would improve things. The final email draft in the blog post is milquetoast; I would forget it within minutes if I were on that list.

pmiller2 8y ago
Ok, so, maybe the revised email should be more forceful and say “this is a bad idea.” I have no problem with being told what I’m proposing is a bad idea. As to the supposed “danger,” I think the author may be reading into it too much. Linus himself says he could “live with” the changes. That, to me, does not sound in any way dangerous. What he has a problem with is the reasoning behind why these changes should be made. “This is a bad idea” covers that. Quibbling over wording doesn’t change the fact that he can effectively get the point across in half the words without insulting anyone or going off on a rant.
hitekker 8y ago
The author sounds like someone raised their voice at him once, and he swore he would never ever forgive the world for that insult. Politically unconscious and otherwise inarticulate.
davidkuhta 8y ago
Agreed, The author in summary states: > It [the rewrite] has 43% as many words, but loses none of the meaning. It's still forceful and unambiguous. Yet, I found the rewrite to be feeble and ambivalent. > If you were in the "I'm afraid that being nicer would hurt Linux" group, do you think that this email is worse? Yes. I wanted to add one additional question. Are there environments where ad hominem and disrespect are actually important cultivators of competency and reverence for the nature of the underlying task. Might there be instances where the collective is better off with Mr. Torvalds than Mr. Rogers?
- UncleMeat 8y ago
  People have done science to answer your last question. In general the answer is no.
  - davidkuhta 8y ago
    Do you have any references? I'd be interested to read them.
    - hitekker 8y ago
      I took note of the “Mr torvalds or Mr Rogers” example. It was clever and I think the truth underlying it is that for an idea to survive its circumstances, it must be shepherded by certain kinds of personalities.
      - davidkuhta 8y ago
        Exactly. I'll add, you accurately used the word shepherded and I thought, "I imagine there are times when sheep aren't too pleased to be handled by a crook". Maybe the Kernel Mailing List is Linus's crook...
tomatotomato37 8y ago
I agree. The revised email is respectful and courteous, but it is also woefully forgetful. While you shouldn't do it all the time, there are times when you just really need to drive a point home
- ivraatiems 8y ago
  Why do you have to insult people on a personal level to drive points home?
  - tomatotomato37 8y ago
    You don't, and I do agree the personal callout was pretty fresh, especially on a public mailing list. It doesn't dismiss the point though that you have to write everything like a HoA letter complaining about the color of your mailbox
  - ng12 8y ago
    Right. Linus and the author are both wrong. You can be forceful and direct with your language -- you just probably shouldn't be using ad hominem insults.
ivraatiems 8y ago
> I'm sorry, but while the argument that Linus makes excessive use of ad hominem and is disrespectul is a valid one, and he could/should temper that, this example is a failure to demonstrate how it would improve things. The final email draft in the blog post is milquetoast; I would forget it within minutes if I were on that list. You'd really forget an email from the head of the project (the "CEO," to use another user's example on here) telling you you've messed up, just because the language was neutral? I'm not sure I understand that. I don't think most people need yelling and raving in order to know something is important or understand what needs to get done. Even so, I'm sure better versions exist. Do you have an idea of a polite-but-forceful rewrite of this email that'd be more effective?
GW150914 8y ago
It occurs to me that these rants of Linus’ would get him banned on this site. It also occurs to me that it only works because people give him a wide bearth, because otherwise it’s just people “screaming” at each other, the very thing that the rules of this site seek to avoid. The notion that emphasis, memorability, and clarity can only be achieved by acting like a child having a tantrum runs contrary to the platform on which this discussion is being had. I don’t know if that matters, but it strikes me as odd that people who seem to appreciate how this site works think that Linus is some exception because of just how mission critical he is. I also think it likely reflects the lack of soft skills some here have that they can’t imagine a better way being as or more effective, despite the living example of HN itself.
yitchelle 8y ago
> If Linus had written the reworded email the author is proposing here, this author wouldn't be writing this blog post, and we wouldn't be clicking it on HN and reading the contents of Linus' points. It is actually a positive rather than negative if author was not motivated to write his blog post by the Linus rant/abuse. It would have meant the Linus was able to get the message across with his abrasive style.
hyperpape 8y ago
Debatable. Linus’s original email is unclear. “I can live with them” is badly ambiguous between: 1. Bad, but I won’t swear at you. 2. I’m not sure what I think, might be ok but needs more discussion 3. Merge them, but I want to swear about the proposed reason, because it’s bad. I think 3 is the least likely, but nothing in the email unambiguously rules it out. I think 2 is the most likely interpretation. There’s something funny about people saying “Linus’s style is valuable because he makes things clear” in response to a post where we can’t agree on what he meant.
strken 8y ago
There's something weird going on with Linus vs the polite people, where Linus is far too rude, but his critics are asking him to adopt a conversational style with a dangerous amount of hedging and uncertainty that would be catastrophically bad for the kernel. Consider These changes look OK, but the rationale is dangerously wrong. It doesn't require Linus to pretend he's "not sure" about a rationale that he obviously thinks is both wrong and dangerous, but it's less personally insulting, shorter, and more on topic.

pmiller2 8y ago

Ok, so, maybe the revised email should be more forceful and say “this is a bad idea.” I have no problem with being told what I’m proposing is a bad idea. As to the supposed “danger,” I think the author may be reading into it too much. Linus himself says he could “live with” the changes. That, to me, does not sound in any way dangerous. What he has a problem with is the reasoning behind why these changes should be made. “This is a bad idea” covers that. Quibbling over wording doesn’t change the fact that he can effectively get the point across in half the words without insulting anyone or going off on a rant.

hitekker 8y ago

The author sounds like someone raised their voice at him once, and he swore he would never ever forgive the world for that insult. Politically unconscious and otherwise inarticulate.

davidkuhta 8y ago

Agreed, The author in summary states: > It [the rewrite] has 43% as many words, but loses none of the meaning. It's still forceful and unambiguous. Yet, I found the rewrite to be feeble and ambivalent. > If you were in the "I'm afraid that being nicer would hurt Linux" group, do you think that this email is worse? Yes. I wanted to add one additional question. Are there environments where ad hominem and disrespect are actually important cultivators of competency and reverence for the nature of the underlying task. Might there be instances where the collective is better off with Mr. Torvalds than Mr. Rogers?

UncleMeat 8y ago
People have done science to answer your last question. In general the answer is no.
- davidkuhta 8y ago
  Do you have any references? I'd be interested to read them.
  - hitekker 8y ago
    I took note of the “Mr torvalds or Mr Rogers” example. It was clever and I think the truth underlying it is that for an idea to survive its circumstances, it must be shepherded by certain kinds of personalities.
    - davidkuhta 8y ago
      Exactly. I'll add, you accurately used the word shepherded and I thought, "I imagine there are times when sheep aren't too pleased to be handled by a crook". Maybe the Kernel Mailing List is Linus's crook...

tomatotomato37 8y ago

I agree. The revised email is respectful and courteous, but it is also woefully forgetful. While you shouldn't do it all the time, there are times when you just really need to drive a point home

ivraatiems 8y ago
Why do you have to insult people on a personal level to drive points home?
- tomatotomato37 8y ago
  You don't, and I do agree the personal callout was pretty fresh, especially on a public mailing list. It doesn't dismiss the point though that you have to write everything like a HoA letter complaining about the color of your mailbox
- ng12 8y ago
  Right. Linus and the author are both wrong. You can be forceful and direct with your language -- you just probably shouldn't be using ad hominem insults.

ivraatiems 8y ago

> I'm sorry, but while the argument that Linus makes excessive use of ad hominem and is disrespectul is a valid one, and he could/should temper that, this example is a failure to demonstrate how it would improve things. The final email draft in the blog post is milquetoast; I would forget it within minutes if I were on that list. You'd really forget an email from the head of the project (the "CEO," to use another user's example on here) telling you you've messed up, just because the language was neutral? I'm not sure I understand that. I don't think most people need yelling and raving in order to know something is important or understand what needs to get done. Even so, I'm sure better versions exist. Do you have an idea of a polite-but-forceful rewrite of this email that'd be more effective?

GW150914 8y ago

It occurs to me that these rants of Linus’ would get him banned on this site. It also occurs to me that it only works because people give him a wide bearth, because otherwise it’s just people “screaming” at each other, the very thing that the rules of this site seek to avoid. The notion that emphasis, memorability, and clarity can only be achieved by acting like a child having a tantrum runs contrary to the platform on which this discussion is being had. I don’t know if that matters, but it strikes me as odd that people who seem to appreciate how this site works think that Linus is some exception because of just how mission critical he is. I also think it likely reflects the lack of soft skills some here have that they can’t imagine a better way being as or more effective, despite the living example of HN itself.

yitchelle 8y ago

> If Linus had written the reworded email the author is proposing here, this author wouldn't be writing this blog post, and we wouldn't be clicking it on HN and reading the contents of Linus' points. It is actually a positive rather than negative if author was not motivated to write his blog post by the Linus rant/abuse. It would have meant the Linus was able to get the message across with his abrasive style.

hyperpape 8y ago

Debatable. Linus’s original email is unclear. “I can live with them” is badly ambiguous between: 1. Bad, but I won’t swear at you. 2. I’m not sure what I think, might be ok but needs more discussion 3. Merge them, but I want to swear about the proposed reason, because it’s bad. I think 3 is the least likely, but nothing in the email unambiguously rules it out. I think 2 is the most likely interpretation. There’s something funny about people saying “Linus’s style is valuable because he makes things clear” in response to a post where we can’t agree on what he meant.

strken 8y ago

There's something weird going on with Linus vs the polite people, where Linus is far too rude, but his critics are asking him to adopt a conversational style with a dangerous amount of hedging and uncertainty that would be catastrophically bad for the kernel. Consider These changes look OK, but the rationale is dangerously wrong. It doesn't require Linus to pretend he's "not sure" about a rationale that he obviously thinks is both wrong and dangerous, but it's less personally insulting, shorter, and more on topic.