5 ms·

> Linus Torvalds is uniquely qualified Gotta stop you right there. Hero worship should not be considered a good thing in our industry. The kernel subsystem ma

> Linus Torvalds is uniquely qualified Gotta stop you right there. Hero worship should not be considered a good thing in our industry. The kernel subsystem maintainers, who actually review the code prior to getting it merged, are the ones with the real power and the necessary knowledge, and I'd argue they are more qualified to oversee the project's future than Torvalds.

tomnipotent 8y ago
Yeah, just like regular employees are better qualified to run a company than the CEO. No one is more qualified than Linus to run this project and he's done a damn good job so far. Has he made mistakes? Sure. He's human.
- moosingin3space 8y ago
  I think that when a company reaches a certain size and stability level, as long as the CEO is competent and understands how to balance external and internal issues, the particular CEO doesn't matter that much. The real power over product direction comes from the PMs, VPs, etc. That's my argument -- Linus isn't uniquely qualified to run the Linux kernel project, since he's barely even involved in the direction of the project.
  - tomnipotent 8y ago
    > the particular CEO doesn't matter that much Business history & Jack Welch disagree with you. Individual project success is incredibly nuanced and individuals - even in 10k+ orgs - can have massive impacts. Trying to pretend that outliers don't massively influence company success is naive, and MBA programs study these individuals because they are the exception and not the rule. There's a reason we have Madison Square Garden, Rockefeller Center and Carnegie Mellon. It's not hero worship to acknowledge the contributions of individuals - recognizing a great general doesn't diminish the accomplishments of his army.
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      Consider how few "genius CEOs'" reputations have survived their attempts to take over failing companies and turn them around.
      - tomnipotent 8y ago
        What do "genius CEOs" have to do with anything? Most successful CEOs were only responsible for a single business. Multiple successes don't change what Gates, Ellison, Knight et el. accomplished because they only did it once. Plenty of instances of people that failed plenty before eventually succeeded elsewhere (Ray Kroc).
        emodendroket 8y ago
        Well, if CEOs didn't have that much bearing on the success of businesses, or don't have much bearing on the success of businesses once they reach a certain size, then seeing a wildly successful CEO completely flop at the next company would make sense.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  > Yeah, just like regular employees are better qualified to run a company than the CEO. I think you could pretty easily adapt Tolstoy's argument to business and say that the primary role of a CEO is to ratify all the on-the-spot decisions his subordinates made as events got away from them.
Natsu 8y ago
Who will maintain the maintainers, though? I think that's what he's good at. They know they'll get called out if they try any BS so they mostly don't. And sometimes Linus overdoes it, but Linux keeps getting better. Anyone who can do better can make their own fork. So far, everyone still follows Linus.
roenxi 8y ago
What makes Torvalds uniquely qualified is he is: 1) Technically capable of maintaining the kernel 2) Known to be mainly motivated by technical concerns If you role the dice with another governance structure, you might get one that is motivated by "collaboration" and then the integrity of the kernel might get compromised by corporate interests. We have no idea how the subsystem maintainers would deal with the politics of a situation without Linus calling shots. We know how Torvalds reacts; rudely :P. The choice isn't ever going to be Torvalds vs. Sunshine & Roses, the choice is Torvalds vs. Unknown. Because of that, he is practically (but not technically) unique.
- toofy 8y ago
  I am in complete agreement that Linus is one of the best we have, and I personally think it would be a huge loss if he were to pull back from the project, and not only for technical reasons. Without sounding like I’m engaging in hero worship, I think him being around is usually positive. However, I’m not convinced—and it would seem he isn’t convinced either—that treating other humans as if they’re inhuman is a fundamental part of what makes him him. I don’t know how we ended up at a point where we believe the only way to tell someone “No” or “You need to do better.” is through incredibly aggressive interactions. I suspect it’s just another hold over from a different time period, and we just never asked “Why?” It sounds like he believes that treating other humans with respect won’t shatter him and I tend to agree with this assumption. His fundamental personality won’t go away and his skills certainly won’t suddenly disappear. I’m interested to hear more regarding your comments about corporate interests. While I strongly and completely agree that we must resist letting their interests work their way into being driving forces, I’m not clear why some believe his most egregious behaviors are needed to keep these separations of intersts in place.

tomnipotent 8y ago

Yeah, just like regular employees are better qualified to run a company than the CEO. No one is more qualified than Linus to run this project and he's done a damn good job so far. Has he made mistakes? Sure. He's human.

moosingin3space 8y ago
I think that when a company reaches a certain size and stability level, as long as the CEO is competent and understands how to balance external and internal issues, the particular CEO doesn't matter that much. The real power over product direction comes from the PMs, VPs, etc. That's my argument -- Linus isn't uniquely qualified to run the Linux kernel project, since he's barely even involved in the direction of the project.
- tomnipotent 8y ago
  > the particular CEO doesn't matter that much Business history & Jack Welch disagree with you. Individual project success is incredibly nuanced and individuals - even in 10k+ orgs - can have massive impacts. Trying to pretend that outliers don't massively influence company success is naive, and MBA programs study these individuals because they are the exception and not the rule. There's a reason we have Madison Square Garden, Rockefeller Center and Carnegie Mellon. It's not hero worship to acknowledge the contributions of individuals - recognizing a great general doesn't diminish the accomplishments of his army.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    Consider how few "genius CEOs'" reputations have survived their attempts to take over failing companies and turn them around.
    - tomnipotent 8y ago
      What do "genius CEOs" have to do with anything? Most successful CEOs were only responsible for a single business. Multiple successes don't change what Gates, Ellison, Knight et el. accomplished because they only did it once. Plenty of instances of people that failed plenty before eventually succeeded elsewhere (Ray Kroc).
      - emodendroket 8y ago
        Well, if CEOs didn't have that much bearing on the success of businesses, or don't have much bearing on the success of businesses once they reach a certain size, then seeing a wildly successful CEO completely flop at the next company would make sense.
emodendroket 8y ago
> Yeah, just like regular employees are better qualified to run a company than the CEO. I think you could pretty easily adapt Tolstoy's argument to business and say that the primary role of a CEO is to ratify all the on-the-spot decisions his subordinates made as events got away from them.

Natsu 8y ago

Who will maintain the maintainers, though? I think that's what he's good at. They know they'll get called out if they try any BS so they mostly don't. And sometimes Linus overdoes it, but Linux keeps getting better. Anyone who can do better can make their own fork. So far, everyone still follows Linus.

roenxi 8y ago

What makes Torvalds uniquely qualified is he is: 1) Technically capable of maintaining the kernel 2) Known to be mainly motivated by technical concerns If you role the dice with another governance structure, you might get one that is motivated by "collaboration" and then the integrity of the kernel might get compromised by corporate interests. We have no idea how the subsystem maintainers would deal with the politics of a situation without Linus calling shots. We know how Torvalds reacts; rudely :P. The choice isn't ever going to be Torvalds vs. Sunshine & Roses, the choice is Torvalds vs. Unknown. Because of that, he is practically (but not technically) unique.

toofy 8y ago
I am in complete agreement that Linus is one of the best we have, and I personally think it would be a huge loss if he were to pull back from the project, and not only for technical reasons. Without sounding like I’m engaging in hero worship, I think him being around is usually positive. However, I’m not convinced—and it would seem he isn’t convinced either—that treating other humans as if they’re inhuman is a fundamental part of what makes him him. I don’t know how we ended up at a point where we believe the only way to tell someone “No” or “You need to do better.” is through incredibly aggressive interactions. I suspect it’s just another hold over from a different time period, and we just never asked “Why?” It sounds like he believes that treating other humans with respect won’t shatter him and I tend to agree with this assumption. His fundamental personality won’t go away and his skills certainly won’t suddenly disappear. I’m interested to hear more regarding your comments about corporate interests. While I strongly and completely agree that we must resist letting their interests work their way into being driving forces, I’m not clear why some believe his most egregious behaviors are needed to keep these separations of intersts in place.