4 ms·
Incorrect. It's only hubris on one side. It's both Linus's plain arbitrary right, and his plain job, his defined role and office, to make exactly such decision
by Brian_K_White 3y ago
Incorrect. It's only hubris on one side.
It's both Linus's plain arbitrary right, and his plain job, his defined role and office, to make exactly such decisions for this project. That's not hubris. It's just a role that affects a lot of people.
What makes it hubris on one side is "Who do you think you are making such a change to the Linux kernel that everyone else will have to accept?"
The reason things like that are phrased as questions is to allow for the possibility that there might be an answer.
For one of these parties, the question is rhetorical.
For one of these parties, the question is not rhetorical.
- halJordan 3y agoYou're misunderstanding the statement (probably because of hubris). Linus has a long tail of hubris-informed acts that have been blessed off, accepted, and rationalized. No one is saying this particular rejection is one of those: Just that if it's ok for Linus to be full of hubris (and it incontrovertibly is) and then it cant be a criticism of this guy either.
- ikekkdcjkfke 3y agoHubris implies over-confidence, this dude has the skills and knowledge
- Brian_K_White 3y agoHubris is overreaching. Linus is not overreaching. His reach actually is farther than yours or mine, and this act and most others are not hubris. It's not even being full of himself.