I would argue against the "straightforward" part. I would call him a blunt rambler. Here's an example post where someone goes through a Linus email and rewrites

I would argue against the "straightforward" part. I would call him a blunt rambler. Here's an example post where someone goes through a Linus email and rewrites it for clarity: https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/blog/2018/a-case-study-in-not-being-a-jerk-in-open-source https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/blog/2018/a-case-study-in... > This is a much better email. It has 43% as many words, but loses none of the meaning. It's still forceful and unambiguous. With fewer words, it's easier for someone to absorb the core message about unthinking deference to standards. > It also doesn't berate anyone, building a needlessly antagonistic culture around the project. Writing this email instead of the original email doesn't require any extra work, and will save mileage on Linus' (or your) fingers besides. Author commentary: https://twitter.com/garybernhardt/status/1009844030656561153?lang=en https://twitter.com/garybernhardt/status/1009844030656561153... > If you read apologists commenting about this email, they often completely miss Linus' actual point. He's fine with the change; he doesn't like the justification, which uses an appeal to authority. The very people who apologize for the useless bloat miss this because of the bloat! > These people missed the signal because it was buried in noise. But most of them go on to argue that the noise is boosting the signal; that ranting is good because it drives the point home. But they didn't even detect the signal because they were so focused on defending the noise!