19 ms·

Linus is stubborn, persistent, and unyielding to what he sees as bullshit. These I believe are all very valuable qualities for the head of a massive software pr

Linus is stubborn, persistent, and unyielding to what he sees as bullshit. These I believe are all very valuable qualities for the head of a massive software project, and may be part of the reason as to why Linux is where it is today. However, Linus is also a bit of an asshole, turning technical criticism into personal seemingly personal attacks. I believe those 2 sets of qualities are separable, but I would guess it's uncommon to find many people who are capable of being as tough as Linus without in some way alienating those around them, it's a fine line at times. Anecdotally, one of the most effective engineers I worked with, who asked penetrating questions during code and design reviews, did come off as a bit of an asshole at times. Whether by genetics or through childhood, I'd bet people tend to cluster onto the line separating "agreeable and lax" and "rude but firm" (as a sweeping generality). We often label people who are all smiles while simultaneously extremely strict as passive agressive. Add to that the fact that many technical people are less socially adjusted than average and I can see why we have so many examples of mean but effective project leads.

blazespin 8y ago
The key, I find, is to be extremely direct and brutal in one on ones. Don't hold back, but be very supportive and positive when more than two people present. I try to explain this to be people I work with, but I don't think everyone appreciates it. Horrible people, in my opinion, are those that do the opposite.
- JoshTriplett 8y ago
  So, being nicer when someone else is watching and could corroborate, while being brutal to people when it's your word against theirs? I wonder why people don't appreciate that advice. "Direct" does not need to go hand-in-hand with "brutal". Don't change your behavior based on who's watching; people deserve to be treated well regardless. EDIT: For clarity, I'm not necessarily suggesting this is the intention, but rather, that this would be the net effect, and a problem with that approach.
  - arkades 8y ago
    I mean, you did just spin it into its worst interpretation. I read the grandparent post as meaning, "Be brutal when the least ego / public stature is at risk, but never cut people down in front of their peers."
    - JoshTriplett 8y ago
      That assumes the only problem with being brutal is making people look bad in front of their peers. That's far from the only problem with being brutal.
      - arkades 8y ago
        I make no such assumption, and I'm not a fan of brutality. I'm not endorsing his position, I'm just rephrasing it as what I believe he meant to say. I'm also not a fan of intentionally putting the worst possible spin on someone's words. Reading charitably is pretty much always a net positive for any thread.
      - dang 8y ago
        arkades is right, and there's a site guideline that specifically addresses this: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. It's easily plausible that one of blazespin's concerns is not to humiliate people in front of their peers. This is a problem with this sort of discussion generally: a lot of the people arguing for others not to treat each other badly, treat others very badly indeed whilst arguing it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        JoshTriplett 8y ago
        I could certainly have phrased my comment more clearly. My point was not necessarily that that was what they were saying, but rather, that that is a likely outcome of that approach. I've added an edit to my original comment clarifying this.
- DannyBee 8y ago
  You can be direct without being brutal. Any variant that invites perspective sharing rather than brutality works fine to accomplish almost any direct feedback. (IE brutality usually does not admit the possibility others may have a different perspective. You are going to get a lot farther in changing/helping people if you listen to their perspective instead of just yours)
  - marmot777 8y ago
    Brutal ultimately undermines because it'll eventually push key people out.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  That's actually the very definition of abuse. I am much more comfortable with people being publicly blunt. At least there is no gaslighting involved where the victim wonders if they imagined it because everyone keeps telling them "he would never do that" or whatever. If you are on excellent terms with someone and they trust you, etc, it can work to be more blunt in private. But most people doing that are just hiding their own bad behavior and that's it. Which makes it a form of corruption.
  - threatofrain 8y ago
    Perhaps you might prefer open debate or critique, but I think most people would prefer that negative speech not occur in public. I think even politely negotiated debates can end up looking embarrassing if other people who are watching can form a justifiably negative narrative. When people are having a discussion in a visible business setting, to some degree, the precise words being spoken by either party become less relevant than the kinds of narratives people can form about either of you. It becomes a negotiation of PR rather than a discussion of ideas.
    - DoreenMichele 8y ago
      Let me put this another way: Abusive people are always, without fail, at their ugliest when there are no witnesses and they have plausible deniability. I'm aware that dressing someone down in public has its own problems.
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        You're describing a situation where they are behaving this way only when alone with a specific person. The actual suggestion was for all one on one interaction.
  - dragonsky67 8y ago
    I think it needs to be acknowledged that many people don't get subtle feedback. If you give me subtle feedback, either positive or negative, chances are I will miss it all together. I need feedback that is clear and obvious, what others could categorises as being blunt or abusive otherwise I will walk away scratching my head wondering if I've done well or otherwise. Reminds me of advise that was given to my Wife by a friend when I got married. Subtle hints don't work, Hints don't work, if you have something you don't like that he is doing, make sure you are bloody obvious when you talk to him about it.
- djrobstep 8y ago
  Psycho alert
  - dang 8y ago
    If you continue to post uncivil and/or unsubstantive comments to HN, we're going to have to ban you. We've already asked you several times not to do that. Could you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix it going forward?
azernik 8y ago
I think there's a delicate way to be both "firm" and "polite" - and that's to not be pretend to be "agreeable", but rather to separate the firmness on technical issues from politeness on personal description. That is, to say "this code is awful" while also a) going out of your way to praise the things co-workers/subordinates do well, and b) when it is appropriate to make general judgments on their performance, make it clear that they are appreciated. The core of the idea of someone being "passive-aggressive" is the idea that you never know where you stand with someone; if you're very clear about what things you're unhappy about and also what you're happy about, that's less of a concern. For specific structures, I've often heard people involved in military leadership describe a formula of "praise-criticise-praise", which seems to be an attempt to run this balancing act on a personal level. "Whew, this was a big project you got done! This bit of code is absolutely bonkers. Everything other than that looks great to me, though." Another technique is to make sure that people hear things from you not just when you're annoyed about something, but also when you're impressed. (Or, when you're not super impressed, talk up their areas of basic competence.) That gives you more leeway to criticize bluntly without impacting morale, and also makes people more eager to please. (Yes, a lot of leadership practices are manipulative as hell. Try to manipulate people without destroying their mental health and happiness please, that's super abusive and also counter-productive.)
- jakeinspace 8y ago
  100% agree, assertive but kind is a wonderful skill and one which needs to be cultivated. My point is just that for whatever broad psychological reason, this seems to be a somewhat rare trait among very technically proficient people. It's the sort of personality trait that leads people to like and respect you.
  - rectang 8y ago
    I totally disagree that "assertive but kind" is a rare trait amongst the "technically proficient". Anecdotally, I know plenty who exhibit all of the above in spades. The key is culture. Technically proficient people working within a community where "assertive but kind" is the norm tend to follow that norm. I'll mention Doug Cutting as the ideal who melds technical proficiency, assertiveness, and kindness. I've often thought of Doug as a better role model for Open Source leadership than Linus Torvalds -- but it looks like after today I'll have an opportunity to reassess!
everdev 8y ago
Very true, but as the recipients we risk misunderstanding rude and intimidating behavior as strength or stubbornness as confidence. When we elevate and accept these behaviors we all lose.
- dragonsky67 8y ago
  It really does depend upon what you are trying to achieve. I'm not familiar with the operation of the Linux kernel team so my comments are more from experience with large organisations. You want your team lead/manager to mentor, encourage guide and assist towards a goal that she has clearly defined. You want your leads manager to provide the resources your team lead has identified as being needed. You want the senior (ultimate) manager to set the goals, provide extensive praise when goals are met and come down like a ton of bricks when they are not. He or she is the "boggy man" who must be pleased and carries the big stick, and the one the team lead insulates the team from. In most cases the boggy man is a big act, but it is an effective tactic to get all the teams working in one direction. Problems happen when the subordinate managers start hiding or changing information that the senior manager may not like. This can be avoided by having a senior manager who actually knows how things work, and can test the water on his own.
tptacek 8y ago
He's not just stubborn, persistent, and unyielding: he's performatively so. In his most notorious attacks, he's clearly playing to an audience. That could be the problem. He clearly can separate the blunt stubbornness ("we do not break userland, period") from the performative rudeness ("SHUT THE FUCK UP MAURO"). (I mean, to be clear: what the fuck do I know? I've never been in the position Linus is in.)
- phillmv 8y ago
  i'm old enough to remember "whoa look at linus flaming someone" at the top of slashdot.
- blihp 8y ago
  I've always assumed that when he really goes after someone it was him blowing off steam to maintain his own mental health rather than trying to put on a show. He's been managing a pile of complexity for over two decades that would have crushed most of us long ago. If it has been even moderately for show then sure, he should work on dialing it back (just a bit... i.e. short of getting personal).
  - tptacek 8y ago
    See, I felt like I was giving him more credit by saying that his rants were performative: at least that would have an ostensible purpose. If you're abusing other people to "blow off steam", that's kind of a no-brainer "you should go see someone about not having to do that anymore".
    - blihp 8y ago
      You're right about it (objectively) being a no-brainer. Unfortunately, it's often hard to see things objectively from a first-person perspective. It sounds like Linus is acknowledging there's a problem and hopefully he can work on whatever the issue is without shaving off too much of the edge that makes him so effective.
      - 8y ago
TallGuyShort 8y ago
I too believe those 2 sets of qualities are separable. I'm less concerned about that fact that Linus' exist as I am about the fact that some of those traits are often correlated with success, and people idolize the successful ones without separating the 2 qualities. I've seen people emulate Steve Jobs to the point of dressing like him and using his mannerisms during presentations, and then also lash out at colleagues for not meeting some arbitrary quality bar with vague comments about it not being perfect enough. Assholes often make it to the top. You gotta admire the parts of them that aren't assholes.
JohnBooty 8y ago
I'd bet people tend to cluster onto the line separating "agreeable and lax" and "rude but firm" (as a sweeping generality) Consider this: A third category of people who are able to accomplish their goals by rallying others to their cause. They are essentially imposing their will on others, but are able to do it in a way that is not "rude." This is called charisma. - "Agreeable and lax"... you allow them to paint the fence however they want, even if their work is shoddy. you may wind up doing it yourself because you don't feel comfortable enforcing your will on others. or perhaps you just wind up with a crappy looking fence. - "Rude but firm"... you don't care about others' feelings and force them somehow to to paint the fence to your specifications. either by physical force, economic force (you have money they need) or some other means - "Charisma"... you convince them that painting the fence the way you want it painted is the best possible thing they could be doing. they willingly paint it for you because they believe it is a good cause and a good use of their time. (note: this does not necessarily imply dishonesty or trickery. arguably, the most charismatic people might be those that are true believers) https://www.google.com/search?q=tom+sawyer+fence https://www.google.com/search?q=tom+sawyer+fence Somewhat tangential, somewhat related: Sun Tzu wrote that the most perfect form of victory was adding the enemies' forces to you own by convincing them to support your cause.
- femto 8y ago
  > this does not necessarily imply dishonesty or trickery. arguably, the most charismatic people might be those that are true believers Not ruling out that a true believer might have deceived themselves! (It's turtles all the way down when trying to answer that about yourself.)
- hyperpallium 8y ago
  > people who are able to accomplish their goals by rallying others to their cause. Like Linus.
  - jjeaff 8y ago
    Is anyone really rallied to the cause by Linus himself? I think the product is the only real draw. With the exception of a select few that simply want to work with someone as high profile and legendary as Linus.
noobermin 8y ago
I don't think it has to be 1D. What I think reality is can be plotted in 2D: abrasive | | effective------+-------ineffective | | kind You're claiming is (and the common trope is) the actual distribution is in fact a straight line with a -1 slope (y=-x). I think there's a general possibility that the distribution is focused around the y=-x here, but there are outliers (imagine the line blurred out) with some wings escaping the lines, with probably what people want the most being in the 3rd quadrant (y<0 && x<0). And hell, there are people who are both abrasive AND ineffective in real life. We know that.
- hatmatrix 8y ago
  If you populate these quadrants most points might lie in QII and QIV (along the -1 diagonal) with few in QI and QIII (though maybe we all know many QI's in our lives...).
  - da_chicken 8y ago
    I think that's obersavtion bias. We tend to remember people who are either abrasive or ineffective. The former because their behavior stands out and the latter because they tend to get in our way. People who are effective and kind tend to be forgettable because we get exactly what we want without any conflict. It just magically appears to work.
- marmot777 8y ago
  Yes.
- citrablue 8y ago
  To take it one step further, I'd say that it's more of a probability function than a 2d chart. I think of it more as your chart, plus a 3rd dimension of "context", then a density cloud. Put another way, people have probability distributions of alignments based on context.
- ryacko 8y ago
  He should only be angry at those who should know better. He often is set off by randos who only want to contribute. So 2D is still too simple. It is like a horseshoe, one can be so abusive that the project fails because of it.
Spooky23 8y ago
Agreeableness is the attribute imo. There’s a scale from “spineless” to “actively squelching dissent”. Agreeable side of the scale people always get rolled in direct confrontation.
Barrin92 8y ago
>Anecdotally, one of the most effective engineers I worked with, who asked penetrating questions during code and design reviews, did come off as a bit of an asshole at times Those are simply the people that stand out. It's harder to appreciate professional and nice leadership because if it works it does not even stand out. If we just take some of the most successful businesses, projects or ventures around and look at their leaders, are most of them abrasive or rude? I wouldn't say that's true. There are certainly some, but they seem to stand out negatively rather than positively, and there is very little to rudeness that actually helps running human organizations. It's popular to like renegade stories, but Linus outbursts don't improve his leadership, he's a good patron of the Linux project despite of and not because of it.
whateveryou381 8y ago
Not every person that _starts_ and _makes_ a project successful grows _with_ the project. Being the person you were yesterday doesn't guarantee that fit the pattern tomorrow. I think that Linus should be the person to make this call. Perhaps Linux is where it is today because of Linus's low tolerance for BS, and he just notices that the components of the 'old' Linus are no longer acceptable/necessary going forward. He should be the judge of that.
danso 8y ago
> Add to that the fact that many technical people are less socially adjusted than average and I can see why we have so many examples of mean but effective project leads. But why should we assume or believe that the status quo we currently observe is the natural order? Or that it is the optimal one going forward? Many people who are now project leads started in a time when both computing and computers were far less ubiquitous in the world. As the world that software interacts with continues to grow and change (or, to use the cliche, as "software eats the world"), we should expect that how software is made, and who makes it, will change too. To think of it another way, it's well-known that decades ago, women dominated the nascent computer programming field -- e.g. the first of ENIAC's primary programmers were all women [0], and "software engineering" as a concept was coined by NASA lead engineer Margaret Hamilton. Those who want to believe that systemic and societal bias weren't significant in pushing women out of the field as it became more lucrative, have suggested that women left because programming became much more than...well, whatever it apparently was when it was entrusted to women. So it shouldn't be beyond belief that contemporary programming and software development may be even better served by engineers and developers who put an emphasis on empathy and inclusiveness. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC#Programmers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC#Programmers
KKKKkkkk1 8y ago
I think that the rudeness/politeness axis is orthogonal to the attention-to-quality axis. I've plenty of colleagues who are rude and pushy and produce shitty work.
swiley 8y ago
In an ideal world these people would all be persistent without being an asshole but I do honestly feel like contributors (whether employees or volunteers) need to handle being yelled at. Even the nicest people can appear to be assholes when you're not expecting a "no."
- marmot777 8y ago
  Pointed cricitism does have value but its value isn't increased by yelling.
BeetleB 8y ago
I can summarize most of the responses to your comment with one group believing that one needs to be nasty/harsh to get the point across, and the other group pointing out that a false dichotomy is being invoked. Even your comment: > I'd bet people tend to cluster onto the line separating "agreeable and lax" and "rude but firm" (as a sweeping generality). You are invoking that dichotomy by drawing that line. Another person: >Agreeableness in general is negatively correlated with career success. (Hidden assumption that being "agreeable" means you're not getting the message across). >I think it needs to be acknowledged that many people don't get subtle feedback. If you give me subtle feedback, either positive or negative, chances are I will miss it all together. I need feedback that is clear and obvious, what others could categorises as being blunt or abusive Again: An implicit assumption that either the feedback has to be subtle, or it has to be abusive. Interesting conflation of "blunt" with "abuse". There are a few others. FWIW, in the last 2 years I decided to read multiple books on effective communication. Pretty much all of them, at some point, will explicitly call out this false dichotomy. The mindset many tend to have is that either you have to preserve a relationship and risk the message not getting across, or be harsh while risking the relationship. The books say that at the very outset, this mindset is one of the main reasons people are poor communicators. As long as one believes in this reality, he/she is dooming him/herself to having poor communication skills. One of the books even gives it a name: The Fool's Choice. Once you spend time studying it, and then start observing real effective communicators (at work and in other arenas), you'll find many of them practice the skills in the books, and you'll suddenly see why they are effective. Changing your own style, though - it will take a lot of work. Expect change to be slow, and it may take years for you to get there. Finally, one other comment straddled this Fool's Choice: >but rather to separate the firmness on technical issues from politeness on personal description. That is, to say "this code is awful" while also a) going out of your way to praise the things co-workers/subordinates do well, and b) when it is appropriate to make general judgments on their performance, make it clear that they are appreciated. Please don't do this. At least not as stated above. Everyone hates this. Some feel the positive statement is insincere, and planted just to soften the blow. At the other end of the spectrum, some take the positive to heart and the positive message actually lowers the severity of the negative in their minds. "Yeah I screwed up there, but it's probably not a big deal. Overall I'm still doing OK" If you want to highlight the problem, go ahead and do it. "For me, your code is problematic because X, Y and Z". Explain why X, Y and Z are bad things. Where you go from there depends on what X, Y and Z are, but usually the next step is to try to identify concrete actions the person can take to prevent the problem from recurring (e.g. use a static analysis tool, or a linter, etc). On the side, code reviews are challenging conversations, because there are very few objective facts. Almost all the (nontrivial) good practices in programming are opinions (including modularity and cohesion guidelines). Never pass an opinion off as a fact. At some level, the team should have coding guidelines/standards. If the team doesn't, then the employee using poor coding practices is not the problem.
tottenhm 8y ago
> Whether by genetics or through childhood, I'd bet people tend to cluster onto the line separating "agreeable and lax" and "rude but firm" (as a sweeping generality). We often label people who are all smiles while simultaneously extremely strict as passive agressive. I often wrestle with these dynamics when trying to respond to community proposals, and I think there's a hidden variable: the cost of the time to respond. As a sweeping generality, the short-term cost of writing a straight "yes" (agreeable, lax) or straight "no" (rude, firm) is cheaper than the short-term cost of writing a "yes...but" or "no...but" (politely acknowledging the other side while critically discussing the merits of particulars). Sometimes, someone can quickly come up with an explanation that is both incisive and pithy. That's awesome, and it's a good skill to develop, but (for mere mortals like me) you can't bank on it all the time. There will be scenarios which require a trade-off (time XOR quality). I'd wager that those two clusters ("agreeable, lax" and "rude, firm") have normal people who are pressed for time. I don't think people are generally stuck in one of those clusters, but getting out... takes time and attention.
mirimir 8y ago
That's my impression from what I've read. But I have no personal experience, so ... What's really cool here is that I think he's basically acknowledging that, and declaring his commitment to transformation. Recursion can be very useful :)
achow 8y ago
Let me take a guess being part of this kind of enviornment and also sometime being cause for this (i.e., I was on the on both side of table). Most likely this originates from the belief that things are being done for "greater good", and usually "collateral emotional damage" is rationalized away (consiously or subconciously) as acceptable in the cause for a holy mission. Anyhow Linus shows great self awareness and I'm walking away thinking that it maybe very painful but I would be a net gainer if I work along with him. Excerpt from the mail: I am not an emotionally empathetic kind of person and that probably doesn't come as a big surprise to anybody. Least of all me. The fact that I then misread people and don't realize (for years) how badly I've judged a situation and contributed to an unprofessional environment is not good. This week people in our community confronted me about my lifetime of not understanding emotions. My flippant attacks in emails have been both unprofessional and uncalled for. Especially at times when I made it personal. In my quest for a better patch, this made sense to me. I know now this was not OK and I am truly sorry.
mikedilger 8y ago
Agreeableness is one of the big-5 personality traits. And it's negatively coorelated with success in leadership positions.
babuskov 8y ago
> We often label people who are all smiles while simultaneously extremely strict as passive agressive. I get this label often and was wondering where was that coming from. Thanks for the insight.
- blihp 8y ago
  A more generalized way to put it is there is a perception of a disconnect between what you say and what you do. If you'd like to shake the label, try being more direct and make sure your words more closely match your actions.
Angostura 8y ago
I've worked with people who are extremely exacting in their standards and absolutely reject any half-arsed attempts. But they have been a joy to work with because the sweep you up in your respect for quality and help you become better. Think of the strict teachers at school, who nonetheless everyone really liked. I think Linus has done great things and I would like to shake him by the hand for taking this no-nonsense approach with himself. I have no doubt that he will retain his commitment to technical excellence.
emilfihlman 8y ago
>Anecdotally, one of the most effective engineers I worked with, who asked penetrating questions during code and design reviews, did come off as a bit of an asshole at times. How do you see the view that you are/were mixing his questions as an attack on you yourself (or against someone else) unnecessarily ("Does he not trust me?", "I know how these things work"), perhaps subconsciously. It is what I've experienced a lot when dealing with North Americans, criticism is taken as an attack on your person.
- allsunny 8y ago
  Exactly. It's a cultural thing.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ekianjo 8y ago
> bit of an asshole I dont think the term "asshole" is fair. Linux lost it when people went against well known principles on which the kernel is built (for example don't break userland), so he always had good reasons to voice his disagreement. I think we can say that he can be "rude", "apathetic", but he was nevertheless fair in his criticism and that's not what you usually say about assholes.
_0ffh 8y ago
Yeah. Also, I think one should consider context. And I mean not only purely technical context, but also human context. A person that has a personality that's disagreeable enough to be able to be tough, while usually staying civil might just have a bad day now and then. Having personal problems, being overworked - whatever - that might push them over the boundary into straight up rudeness on occasion. You just can't get it right all the time.
Razengan 8y ago
> stubborn, persistent, and unyielding to what he sees as bullshit > also a bit of an asshole It probably comes with being a perfectionist; by definition they're intolerant of bullshit and don't like to leave things half-baked, which can make them harsh or cold to more lax people (the majority of us.) You hear the same shit about Steve Jobs, but without someone like him, you can see many [more] annoying little things in Apple's products that only an ""asshole"" would tell their teams to fix. Things like UI elements being off by 1 pixel here and there, that to even complain about them you'd have to have what is considered a disorder. If you point them out even as a user you will get shut down by other users; "There are bigger problems to worry about!" Now imagine convincing the people who work under you to take care of such seemingly-insignificant things. How would you not come off as a tyrant?
teddyuk 8y ago
I worked with a CTO once who was both determined that anything customer facing was the best it could be without being rude. If we didnt make the best user experience it would be rejected but we would work harder to get it right, if he was an arsehole like linus we wouldn't have. You don't have to be a prick to comand respect and to get the best results.
NuckFackerHews 8y ago
Why are people demanding Linus Torvalds be the epitome of a straw man political stoic when the people who forced the CoC change on his project over a grueling Microsoft-backed culture war of attrition are the literal opposite of that personality type? Grass-is-greener armchair psychologists seem to think they could effortlessly manage the codebase that powers the heart of billion machines (from cellphones to supercomputers) without it taking any emotional or psychological toll whatsoever. You deserve a future where Microsoft runs everything.
godgod 8y ago
I don't care how smart he is or the fact that he created the Linux kernel...there is NO excuse for being unprofessional and a dick.
on_and_off 8y ago
Or maybe that tech in general has a toxic culture problem and Linus definitely contributed to it by making it ok to be an asshole as long as you are skilled. I often see people complain that 'soft' topics are not worth being included in conferences. Being tough and being an asshole are two very separate things. The best engineers I have had the pleasure to work with were both technically skilled and great mentors/teammates. Last time I have checked, software engineering is almost exclusively teamwork, it is time we start treating it as such.

blazespin 8y ago

The key, I find, is to be extremely direct and brutal in one on ones. Don't hold back, but be very supportive and positive when more than two people present. I try to explain this to be people I work with, but I don't think everyone appreciates it. Horrible people, in my opinion, are those that do the opposite.

JoshTriplett 8y ago
So, being nicer when someone else is watching and could corroborate, while being brutal to people when it's your word against theirs? I wonder why people don't appreciate that advice. "Direct" does not need to go hand-in-hand with "brutal". Don't change your behavior based on who's watching; people deserve to be treated well regardless. EDIT: For clarity, I'm not necessarily suggesting this is the intention, but rather, that this would be the net effect, and a problem with that approach.
- arkades 8y ago
  I mean, you did just spin it into its worst interpretation. I read the grandparent post as meaning, "Be brutal when the least ego / public stature is at risk, but never cut people down in front of their peers."
  - JoshTriplett 8y ago
    That assumes the only problem with being brutal is making people look bad in front of their peers. That's far from the only problem with being brutal.
    - arkades 8y ago
      I make no such assumption, and I'm not a fan of brutality. I'm not endorsing his position, I'm just rephrasing it as what I believe he meant to say. I'm also not a fan of intentionally putting the worst possible spin on someone's words. Reading charitably is pretty much always a net positive for any thread.
    - dang 8y ago
      arkades is right, and there's a site guideline that specifically addresses this: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. It's easily plausible that one of blazespin's concerns is not to humiliate people in front of their peers. This is a problem with this sort of discussion generally: a lot of the people arguing for others not to treat each other badly, treat others very badly indeed whilst arguing it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - JoshTriplett 8y ago
        I could certainly have phrased my comment more clearly. My point was not necessarily that that was what they were saying, but rather, that that is a likely outcome of that approach. I've added an edit to my original comment clarifying this.
DannyBee 8y ago
You can be direct without being brutal. Any variant that invites perspective sharing rather than brutality works fine to accomplish almost any direct feedback. (IE brutality usually does not admit the possibility others may have a different perspective. You are going to get a lot farther in changing/helping people if you listen to their perspective instead of just yours)
- marmot777 8y ago
  Brutal ultimately undermines because it'll eventually push key people out.
DoreenMichele 8y ago
That's actually the very definition of abuse. I am much more comfortable with people being publicly blunt. At least there is no gaslighting involved where the victim wonders if they imagined it because everyone keeps telling them "he would never do that" or whatever. If you are on excellent terms with someone and they trust you, etc, it can work to be more blunt in private. But most people doing that are just hiding their own bad behavior and that's it. Which makes it a form of corruption.
- threatofrain 8y ago
  Perhaps you might prefer open debate or critique, but I think most people would prefer that negative speech not occur in public. I think even politely negotiated debates can end up looking embarrassing if other people who are watching can form a justifiably negative narrative. When people are having a discussion in a visible business setting, to some degree, the precise words being spoken by either party become less relevant than the kinds of narratives people can form about either of you. It becomes a negotiation of PR rather than a discussion of ideas.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    Let me put this another way: Abusive people are always, without fail, at their ugliest when there are no witnesses and they have plausible deniability. I'm aware that dressing someone down in public has its own problems.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      You're describing a situation where they are behaving this way only when alone with a specific person. The actual suggestion was for all one on one interaction.
- dragonsky67 8y ago
  I think it needs to be acknowledged that many people don't get subtle feedback. If you give me subtle feedback, either positive or negative, chances are I will miss it all together. I need feedback that is clear and obvious, what others could categorises as being blunt or abusive otherwise I will walk away scratching my head wondering if I've done well or otherwise. Reminds me of advise that was given to my Wife by a friend when I got married. Subtle hints don't work, Hints don't work, if you have something you don't like that he is doing, make sure you are bloody obvious when you talk to him about it.
djrobstep 8y ago
Psycho alert
- dang 8y ago
  If you continue to post uncivil and/or unsubstantive comments to HN, we're going to have to ban you. We've already asked you several times not to do that. Could you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix it going forward?

azernik 8y ago

I think there's a delicate way to be both "firm" and "polite" - and that's to not be pretend to be "agreeable", but rather to separate the firmness on technical issues from politeness on personal description. That is, to say "this code is awful" while also a) going out of your way to praise the things co-workers/subordinates do well, and b) when it is appropriate to make general judgments on their performance, make it clear that they are appreciated. The core of the idea of someone being "passive-aggressive" is the idea that you never know where you stand with someone; if you're very clear about what things you're unhappy about and also what you're happy about, that's less of a concern. For specific structures, I've often heard people involved in military leadership describe a formula of "praise-criticise-praise", which seems to be an attempt to run this balancing act on a personal level. "Whew, this was a big project you got done! This bit of code is absolutely bonkers. Everything other than that looks great to me, though." Another technique is to make sure that people hear things from you not just when you're annoyed about something, but also when you're impressed. (Or, when you're not super impressed, talk up their areas of basic competence.) That gives you more leeway to criticize bluntly without impacting morale, and also makes people more eager to please. (Yes, a lot of leadership practices are manipulative as hell. Try to manipulate people without destroying their mental health and happiness please, that's super abusive and also counter-productive.)

jakeinspace 8y ago
100% agree, assertive but kind is a wonderful skill and one which needs to be cultivated. My point is just that for whatever broad psychological reason, this seems to be a somewhat rare trait among very technically proficient people. It's the sort of personality trait that leads people to like and respect you.
- rectang 8y ago
  I totally disagree that "assertive but kind" is a rare trait amongst the "technically proficient". Anecdotally, I know plenty who exhibit all of the above in spades. The key is culture. Technically proficient people working within a community where "assertive but kind" is the norm tend to follow that norm. I'll mention Doug Cutting as the ideal who melds technical proficiency, assertiveness, and kindness. I've often thought of Doug as a better role model for Open Source leadership than Linus Torvalds -- but it looks like after today I'll have an opportunity to reassess!

everdev 8y ago

Very true, but as the recipients we risk misunderstanding rude and intimidating behavior as strength or stubbornness as confidence. When we elevate and accept these behaviors we all lose.

dragonsky67 8y ago
It really does depend upon what you are trying to achieve. I'm not familiar with the operation of the Linux kernel team so my comments are more from experience with large organisations. You want your team lead/manager to mentor, encourage guide and assist towards a goal that she has clearly defined. You want your leads manager to provide the resources your team lead has identified as being needed. You want the senior (ultimate) manager to set the goals, provide extensive praise when goals are met and come down like a ton of bricks when they are not. He or she is the "boggy man" who must be pleased and carries the big stick, and the one the team lead insulates the team from. In most cases the boggy man is a big act, but it is an effective tactic to get all the teams working in one direction. Problems happen when the subordinate managers start hiding or changing information that the senior manager may not like. This can be avoided by having a senior manager who actually knows how things work, and can test the water on his own.

tptacek 8y ago

He's not just stubborn, persistent, and unyielding: he's performatively so. In his most notorious attacks, he's clearly playing to an audience. That could be the problem. He clearly can separate the blunt stubbornness ("we do not break userland, period") from the performative rudeness ("SHUT THE FUCK UP MAURO"). (I mean, to be clear: what the fuck do I know? I've never been in the position Linus is in.)

phillmv 8y ago
i'm old enough to remember "whoa look at linus flaming someone" at the top of slashdot.
blihp 8y ago
I've always assumed that when he really goes after someone it was him blowing off steam to maintain his own mental health rather than trying to put on a show. He's been managing a pile of complexity for over two decades that would have crushed most of us long ago. If it has been even moderately for show then sure, he should work on dialing it back (just a bit... i.e. short of getting personal).
- tptacek 8y ago
  See, I felt like I was giving him more credit by saying that his rants were performative: at least that would have an ostensible purpose. If you're abusing other people to "blow off steam", that's kind of a no-brainer "you should go see someone about not having to do that anymore".
  - blihp 8y ago
    You're right about it (objectively) being a no-brainer. Unfortunately, it's often hard to see things objectively from a first-person perspective. It sounds like Linus is acknowledging there's a problem and hopefully he can work on whatever the issue is without shaving off too much of the edge that makes him so effective.
    - 8y ago

TallGuyShort 8y ago

I too believe those 2 sets of qualities are separable. I'm less concerned about that fact that Linus' exist as I am about the fact that some of those traits are often correlated with success, and people idolize the successful ones without separating the 2 qualities. I've seen people emulate Steve Jobs to the point of dressing like him and using his mannerisms during presentations, and then also lash out at colleagues for not meeting some arbitrary quality bar with vague comments about it not being perfect enough. Assholes often make it to the top. You gotta admire the parts of them that aren't assholes.

JohnBooty 8y ago

I'd bet people tend to cluster onto the line separating "agreeable and lax" and "rude but firm" (as a sweeping generality) Consider this: A third category of people who are able to accomplish their goals by rallying others to their cause. They are essentially imposing their will on others, but are able to do it in a way that is not "rude." This is called charisma. - "Agreeable and lax"... you allow them to paint the fence however they want, even if their work is shoddy. you may wind up doing it yourself because you don't feel comfortable enforcing your will on others. or perhaps you just wind up with a crappy looking fence. - "Rude but firm"... you don't care about others' feelings and force them somehow to to paint the fence to your specifications. either by physical force, economic force (you have money they need) or some other means - "Charisma"... you convince them that painting the fence the way you want it painted is the best possible thing they could be doing. they willingly paint it for you because they believe it is a good cause and a good use of their time. (note: this does not necessarily imply dishonesty or trickery. arguably, the most charismatic people might be those that are true believers) https://www.google.com/search?q=tom+sawyer+fence https://www.google.com/search?q=tom+sawyer+fence Somewhat tangential, somewhat related: Sun Tzu wrote that the most perfect form of victory was adding the enemies' forces to you own by convincing them to support your cause.

femto 8y ago
> this does not necessarily imply dishonesty or trickery. arguably, the most charismatic people might be those that are true believers Not ruling out that a true believer might have deceived themselves! (It's turtles all the way down when trying to answer that about yourself.)
hyperpallium 8y ago
> people who are able to accomplish their goals by rallying others to their cause. Like Linus.
- jjeaff 8y ago
  Is anyone really rallied to the cause by Linus himself? I think the product is the only real draw. With the exception of a select few that simply want to work with someone as high profile and legendary as Linus.

noobermin 8y ago

I don't think it has to be 1D. What I think reality is can be plotted in 2D: abrasive | | effective------+-------ineffective | | kind You're claiming is (and the common trope is) the actual distribution is in fact a straight line with a -1 slope (y=-x). I think there's a general possibility that the distribution is focused around the y=-x here, but there are outliers (imagine the line blurred out) with some wings escaping the lines, with probably what people want the most being in the 3rd quadrant (y<0 && x<0). And hell, there are people who are both abrasive AND ineffective in real life. We know that.

hatmatrix 8y ago
If you populate these quadrants most points might lie in QII and QIV (along the -1 diagonal) with few in QI and QIII (though maybe we all know many QI's in our lives...).
- da_chicken 8y ago
  I think that's obersavtion bias. We tend to remember people who are either abrasive or ineffective. The former because their behavior stands out and the latter because they tend to get in our way. People who are effective and kind tend to be forgettable because we get exactly what we want without any conflict. It just magically appears to work.
marmot777 8y ago
Yes.
citrablue 8y ago
To take it one step further, I'd say that it's more of a probability function than a 2d chart. I think of it more as your chart, plus a 3rd dimension of "context", then a density cloud. Put another way, people have probability distributions of alignments based on context.
ryacko 8y ago
He should only be angry at those who should know better. He often is set off by randos who only want to contribute. So 2D is still too simple. It is like a horseshoe, one can be so abusive that the project fails because of it.

Spooky23 8y ago

Agreeableness is the attribute imo. There’s a scale from “spineless” to “actively squelching dissent”. Agreeable side of the scale people always get rolled in direct confrontation.

Barrin92 8y ago

>Anecdotally, one of the most effective engineers I worked with, who asked penetrating questions during code and design reviews, did come off as a bit of an asshole at times Those are simply the people that stand out. It's harder to appreciate professional and nice leadership because if it works it does not even stand out. If we just take some of the most successful businesses, projects or ventures around and look at their leaders, are most of them abrasive or rude? I wouldn't say that's true. There are certainly some, but they seem to stand out negatively rather than positively, and there is very little to rudeness that actually helps running human organizations. It's popular to like renegade stories, but Linus outbursts don't improve his leadership, he's a good patron of the Linux project despite of and not because of it.

whateveryou381 8y ago

Not every person that _starts_ and _makes_ a project successful grows _with_ the project. Being the person you were yesterday doesn't guarantee that fit the pattern tomorrow. I think that Linus should be the person to make this call. Perhaps Linux is where it is today because of Linus's low tolerance for BS, and he just notices that the components of the 'old' Linus are no longer acceptable/necessary going forward. He should be the judge of that.

danso 8y ago

> Add to that the fact that many technical people are less socially adjusted than average and I can see why we have so many examples of mean but effective project leads. But why should we assume or believe that the status quo we currently observe is the natural order? Or that it is the optimal one going forward? Many people who are now project leads started in a time when both computing and computers were far less ubiquitous in the world. As the world that software interacts with continues to grow and change (or, to use the cliche, as "software eats the world"), we should expect that how software is made, and who makes it, will change too. To think of it another way, it's well-known that decades ago, women dominated the nascent computer programming field -- e.g. the first of ENIAC's primary programmers were all women [0], and "software engineering" as a concept was coined by NASA lead engineer Margaret Hamilton. Those who want to believe that systemic and societal bias weren't significant in pushing women out of the field as it became more lucrative, have suggested that women left because programming became much more than...well, whatever it apparently was when it was entrusted to women. So it shouldn't be beyond belief that contemporary programming and software development may be even better served by engineers and developers who put an emphasis on empathy and inclusiveness. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC#Programmers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC#Programmers

KKKKkkkk1 8y ago

I think that the rudeness/politeness axis is orthogonal to the attention-to-quality axis. I've plenty of colleagues who are rude and pushy and produce shitty work.

swiley 8y ago

In an ideal world these people would all be persistent without being an asshole but I do honestly feel like contributors (whether employees or volunteers) need to handle being yelled at. Even the nicest people can appear to be assholes when you're not expecting a "no."

marmot777 8y ago
Pointed cricitism does have value but its value isn't increased by yelling.

BeetleB 8y ago

I can summarize most of the responses to your comment with one group believing that one needs to be nasty/harsh to get the point across, and the other group pointing out that a false dichotomy is being invoked. Even your comment: > I'd bet people tend to cluster onto the line separating "agreeable and lax" and "rude but firm" (as a sweeping generality). You are invoking that dichotomy by drawing that line. Another person: >Agreeableness in general is negatively correlated with career success. (Hidden assumption that being "agreeable" means you're not getting the message across). >I think it needs to be acknowledged that many people don't get subtle feedback. If you give me subtle feedback, either positive or negative, chances are I will miss it all together. I need feedback that is clear and obvious, what others could categorises as being blunt or abusive Again: An implicit assumption that either the feedback has to be subtle, or it has to be abusive. Interesting conflation of "blunt" with "abuse". There are a few others. FWIW, in the last 2 years I decided to read multiple books on effective communication. Pretty much all of them, at some point, will explicitly call out this false dichotomy. The mindset many tend to have is that either you have to preserve a relationship and risk the message not getting across, or be harsh while risking the relationship. The books say that at the very outset, this mindset is one of the main reasons people are poor communicators. As long as one believes in this reality, he/she is dooming him/herself to having poor communication skills. One of the books even gives it a name: The Fool's Choice. Once you spend time studying it, and then start observing real effective communicators (at work and in other arenas), you'll find many of them practice the skills in the books, and you'll suddenly see why they are effective. Changing your own style, though - it will take a lot of work. Expect change to be slow, and it may take years for you to get there. Finally, one other comment straddled this Fool's Choice: >but rather to separate the firmness on technical issues from politeness on personal description. That is, to say "this code is awful" while also a) going out of your way to praise the things co-workers/subordinates do well, and b) when it is appropriate to make general judgments on their performance, make it clear that they are appreciated. Please don't do this. At least not as stated above. Everyone hates this. Some feel the positive statement is insincere, and planted just to soften the blow. At the other end of the spectrum, some take the positive to heart and the positive message actually lowers the severity of the negative in their minds. "Yeah I screwed up there, but it's probably not a big deal. Overall I'm still doing OK" If you want to highlight the problem, go ahead and do it. "For me, your code is problematic because X, Y and Z". Explain why X, Y and Z are bad things. Where you go from there depends on what X, Y and Z are, but usually the next step is to try to identify concrete actions the person can take to prevent the problem from recurring (e.g. use a static analysis tool, or a linter, etc). On the side, code reviews are challenging conversations, because there are very few objective facts. Almost all the (nontrivial) good practices in programming are opinions (including modularity and cohesion guidelines). Never pass an opinion off as a fact. At some level, the team should have coding guidelines/standards. If the team doesn't, then the employee using poor coding practices is not the problem.

tottenhm 8y ago

> Whether by genetics or through childhood, I'd bet people tend to cluster onto the line separating "agreeable and lax" and "rude but firm" (as a sweeping generality). We often label people who are all smiles while simultaneously extremely strict as passive agressive. I often wrestle with these dynamics when trying to respond to community proposals, and I think there's a hidden variable: the cost of the time to respond. As a sweeping generality, the short-term cost of writing a straight "yes" (agreeable, lax) or straight "no" (rude, firm) is cheaper than the short-term cost of writing a "yes...but" or "no...but" (politely acknowledging the other side while critically discussing the merits of particulars). Sometimes, someone can quickly come up with an explanation that is both incisive and pithy. That's awesome, and it's a good skill to develop, but (for mere mortals like me) you can't bank on it all the time. There will be scenarios which require a trade-off (time XOR quality). I'd wager that those two clusters ("agreeable, lax" and "rude, firm") have normal people who are pressed for time. I don't think people are generally stuck in one of those clusters, but getting out... takes time and attention.

mirimir 8y ago

That's my impression from what I've read. But I have no personal experience, so ... What's really cool here is that I think he's basically acknowledging that, and declaring his commitment to transformation. Recursion can be very useful :)

achow 8y ago

Let me take a guess being part of this kind of enviornment and also sometime being cause for this (i.e., I was on the on both side of table). Most likely this originates from the belief that things are being done for "greater good", and usually "collateral emotional damage" is rationalized away (consiously or subconciously) as acceptable in the cause for a holy mission. Anyhow Linus shows great self awareness and I'm walking away thinking that it maybe very painful but I would be a net gainer if I work along with him. Excerpt from the mail: I am not an emotionally empathetic kind of person and that probably doesn't come as a big surprise to anybody. Least of all me. The fact that I then misread people and don't realize (for years) how badly I've judged a situation and contributed to an unprofessional environment is not good. This week people in our community confronted me about my lifetime of not understanding emotions. My flippant attacks in emails have been both unprofessional and uncalled for. Especially at times when I made it personal. In my quest for a better patch, this made sense to me. I know now this was not OK and I am truly sorry.

mikedilger 8y ago

Agreeableness is one of the big-5 personality traits. And it's negatively coorelated with success in leadership positions.

babuskov 8y ago

> We often label people who are all smiles while simultaneously extremely strict as passive agressive. I get this label often and was wondering where was that coming from. Thanks for the insight.

blihp 8y ago
A more generalized way to put it is there is a perception of a disconnect between what you say and what you do. If you'd like to shake the label, try being more direct and make sure your words more closely match your actions.

Angostura 8y ago

I've worked with people who are extremely exacting in their standards and absolutely reject any half-arsed attempts. But they have been a joy to work with because the sweep you up in your respect for quality and help you become better. Think of the strict teachers at school, who nonetheless everyone really liked. I think Linus has done great things and I would like to shake him by the hand for taking this no-nonsense approach with himself. I have no doubt that he will retain his commitment to technical excellence.

emilfihlman 8y ago

>Anecdotally, one of the most effective engineers I worked with, who asked penetrating questions during code and design reviews, did come off as a bit of an asshole at times. How do you see the view that you are/were mixing his questions as an attack on you yourself (or against someone else) unnecessarily ("Does he not trust me?", "I know how these things work"), perhaps subconsciously. It is what I've experienced a lot when dealing with North Americans, criticism is taken as an attack on your person.

allsunny 8y ago
Exactly. It's a cultural thing.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ekianjo 8y ago

> bit of an asshole I dont think the term "asshole" is fair. Linux lost it when people went against well known principles on which the kernel is built (for example don't break userland), so he always had good reasons to voice his disagreement. I think we can say that he can be "rude", "apathetic", but he was nevertheless fair in his criticism and that's not what you usually say about assholes.

_0ffh 8y ago

Yeah. Also, I think one should consider context. And I mean not only purely technical context, but also human context. A person that has a personality that's disagreeable enough to be able to be tough, while usually staying civil might just have a bad day now and then. Having personal problems, being overworked - whatever - that might push them over the boundary into straight up rudeness on occasion. You just can't get it right all the time.

Razengan 8y ago

> stubborn, persistent, and unyielding to what he sees as bullshit > also a bit of an asshole It probably comes with being a perfectionist; by definition they're intolerant of bullshit and don't like to leave things half-baked, which can make them harsh or cold to more lax people (the majority of us.) You hear the same shit about Steve Jobs, but without someone like him, you can see many [more] annoying little things in Apple's products that only an ""asshole"" would tell their teams to fix. Things like UI elements being off by 1 pixel here and there, that to even complain about them you'd have to have what is considered a disorder. If you point them out even as a user you will get shut down by other users; "There are bigger problems to worry about!" Now imagine convincing the people who work under you to take care of such seemingly-insignificant things. How would you not come off as a tyrant?

teddyuk 8y ago

I worked with a CTO once who was both determined that anything customer facing was the best it could be without being rude. If we didnt make the best user experience it would be rejected but we would work harder to get it right, if he was an arsehole like linus we wouldn't have. You don't have to be a prick to comand respect and to get the best results.

NuckFackerHews 8y ago

Why are people demanding Linus Torvalds be the epitome of a straw man political stoic when the people who forced the CoC change on his project over a grueling Microsoft-backed culture war of attrition are the literal opposite of that personality type? Grass-is-greener armchair psychologists seem to think they could effortlessly manage the codebase that powers the heart of billion machines (from cellphones to supercomputers) without it taking any emotional or psychological toll whatsoever. You deserve a future where Microsoft runs everything.

godgod 8y ago

I don't care how smart he is or the fact that he created the Linux kernel...there is NO excuse for being unprofessional and a dick.

on_and_off 8y ago

Or maybe that tech in general has a toxic culture problem and Linus definitely contributed to it by making it ok to be an asshole as long as you are skilled. I often see people complain that 'soft' topics are not worth being included in conferences. Being tough and being an asshole are two very separate things. The best engineers I have had the pleasure to work with were both technically skilled and great mentors/teammates. Last time I have checked, software engineering is almost exclusively teamwork, it is time we start treating it as such.