4 ms·

The issue isn't directness. The issue is repeatedly taking needless swipes at the author's competency or intent ("worthless", "complete nonsense", "totally illo

The issue isn't directness. The issue is repeatedly taking needless swipes at the author's competency or intent ("worthless", "complete nonsense", "totally illogical"), when Linus' criticisms are really mostly just small (if valid!) gripes about naming conventions and readability. This is particularly funny because I remember that several years ago, he publicly apologized for being abrasive and promised to get better... but old habits die hard. He has every right to run the project as he sees fit, but then, people here have every right to be mildly cranky about that too.

noirscape 3y ago
Maybe it's because I'm not American but I don't see that language as unwarranted nor particularly severe? (Also not insulting the authors competency; the strong language is mostly on the technical merits of the commit, not the authors own technical merits.) Like I've read some of Linus' older swear-laden rants back in the day; those could get unreasonably angry at people for what amounted to things like inconsistent commenting and basically had shit in them that amounted to "the author shouldn't ask me for anything ever again". That's not present here. This is a direct code review that calls out (from what I understand) a number of bad design problems (hence: totally illogical and complete nonsense) and the fact that the author doesn't seem to have followed the kernel commit message rules. (For which, yes, the moniker "worthless" is appropriate for those messages - the kernel has pretty strict commit message rules.) It's strong language but strong language of this stripe is only bad if it's excessive or attacks the wrong thing. I don't think it's excessive in this case; the patch seems like it's a poorly thought through solution and is a technical mess for a project that has strict rules about user space APIs (aka if a poor solution ends up being used, it'll be maintained for ages). In general the response from Linus reads more like that of a certain type of uni teacher; "this is bad, go back to the drawing board, here's what you did wrong". Finally, also keep in mind that this patch was submitted by a Google employee (they're representing their employer) and that as far as I understand it, by the time you get to contribute to the mailing list that has Linus doing code review, you're at least expected to be familiar with how the Kernel works - he's not in a position where he can scare the newbies[0]. I'd not put up with it if it were a colleague but that's also really not the dynamic here. Google is more akin to a third party vendor than anything else. [0]: Some of the lower tree maintainers are though.
plugin-baby 3y ago
> Linus' criticisms are really mostly just small (if valid!) gripes about naming conventions and readability > > My complaints are not some kind of small "fix this up". These are fundamental issues. Maybe he wasn’t direct enough!
- PumpkinSpice 3y ago
  No, I read that part, but they're still small gripes. He has no objections to the idea itself, and no reservations about the overall design. He gripes about syntax. Let me be clear: I think the crux of his feedback is solid and is a matter of good engineering. It's good to upkeep these principles for the Linux kernel. But it is very much "fix it up and come back".
mcpackieh 3y ago
> swipes at the author's competency or intent ("worthless", "complete nonsense", "totally illogical"), These remarks are directed at specific problems wit the code. Linus did not call the author worthless, nonsensical or illogical. In engineering, conflating criticism of your work with personal criticism of yourself is a sin.
- PumpkinSpice 3y ago
  It strikes me as a weird argument. This is your work. You presumably did your best. If another person calls that work "complete nonsense" or "totally illogical", they are implicitly saying that you failed at basic cognitive skills and produced complete garbage. Which, you know, might be justified every now and then, but it's not justified in this case.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    If an engineer can't receive criticism of their work without taking it personally then they're a liability to the project. Taking criticism of your work in stride is an essential part of the job.

noirscape 3y ago

Maybe it's because I'm not American but I don't see that language as unwarranted nor particularly severe? (Also not insulting the authors competency; the strong language is mostly on the technical merits of the commit, not the authors own technical merits.) Like I've read some of Linus' older swear-laden rants back in the day; those could get unreasonably angry at people for what amounted to things like inconsistent commenting and basically had shit in them that amounted to "the author shouldn't ask me for anything ever again". That's not present here. This is a direct code review that calls out (from what I understand) a number of bad design problems (hence: totally illogical and complete nonsense) and the fact that the author doesn't seem to have followed the kernel commit message rules. (For which, yes, the moniker "worthless" is appropriate for those messages - the kernel has pretty strict commit message rules.) It's strong language but strong language of this stripe is only bad if it's excessive or attacks the wrong thing. I don't think it's excessive in this case; the patch seems like it's a poorly thought through solution and is a technical mess for a project that has strict rules about user space APIs (aka if a poor solution ends up being used, it'll be maintained for ages). In general the response from Linus reads more like that of a certain type of uni teacher; "this is bad, go back to the drawing board, here's what you did wrong". Finally, also keep in mind that this patch was submitted by a Google employee (they're representing their employer) and that as far as I understand it, by the time you get to contribute to the mailing list that has Linus doing code review, you're at least expected to be familiar with how the Kernel works - he's not in a position where he can scare the newbies[0]. I'd not put up with it if it were a colleague but that's also really not the dynamic here. Google is more akin to a third party vendor than anything else. [0]: Some of the lower tree maintainers are though.

plugin-baby 3y ago

> Linus' criticisms are really mostly just small (if valid!) gripes about naming conventions and readability > > My complaints are not some kind of small "fix this up". These are fundamental issues. Maybe he wasn’t direct enough!

PumpkinSpice 3y ago
No, I read that part, but they're still small gripes. He has no objections to the idea itself, and no reservations about the overall design. He gripes about syntax. Let me be clear: I think the crux of his feedback is solid and is a matter of good engineering. It's good to upkeep these principles for the Linux kernel. But it is very much "fix it up and come back".

mcpackieh 3y ago

> swipes at the author's competency or intent ("worthless", "complete nonsense", "totally illogical"), These remarks are directed at specific problems wit the code. Linus did not call the author worthless, nonsensical or illogical. In engineering, conflating criticism of your work with personal criticism of yourself is a sin.

PumpkinSpice 3y ago
It strikes me as a weird argument. This is your work. You presumably did your best. If another person calls that work "complete nonsense" or "totally illogical", they are implicitly saying that you failed at basic cognitive skills and produced complete garbage. Which, you know, might be justified every now and then, but it's not justified in this case.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  If an engineer can't receive criticism of their work without taking it personally then they're a liability to the project. Taking criticism of your work in stride is an essential part of the job.