3 ms·

> I'm glad <insert name here> is a jerk because it allows him to spend more time doing <insert cool thing here>. I'm convinced that's a fallacy. Is "[Github's

> I'm glad <insert name here> is a jerk because it allows him to spend more time doing <insert cool thing here>. I'm convinced that's a fallacy. Is "[Github's] pull requests and the online commit editing, are just pure garbage, go file a bug report with them" that much easier to voice than "[Github's] pull requests don't provide the flexibility or formatting we need for the kernel, so please read up on the proper pull request procedure. thanks!"? Plus such courtesy eliminates the inevitable outrage of the anti-prick crusade.

ZenPsycho 14y ago
Yes, because nobody can calculate in advance the thousands of ways any particular utterance might be interpreted by someone. It's rather neurotic to try, and much easier to just say what you mean, and accept that haters gonna hate.
- xaa 14y ago
  I don't see that calling people "morons" or their work "garbage" as being that ambiguous.
  - ZenPsycho 14y ago
    exactly
  - 1SaltwaterC 14y ago
    There's a lot of ambiguity in your comment alone by taking things out of their context. "Git comes with a nice pull-request generation module, but github instead decided to replace it with their own totally inferior version. As a result, I consider github useless for these kinds of things. It's fine for hosting, but the pull requests and the online commit editing, are just pure garbage." If you think github people can school Linus at git usage, you're being delusional. There's a reason for that. The "moron" thing was targeted at a troll that deleted his comments. The "moron" comment starts with "Btw, Joseph". Now comes the 1000 points question: where's this Joseph fella in that thread? I've seen the original discussion before the troll deleted his comments. Did you?
    - xaa 14y ago
      If these were isolated incidents, I'd agree with you. We should give Linus the benefit of the doubt because of his substantial contributions to OSS. Unfortunately, this behavior is very well established. To take a few random examples of Linus calling people morons (and mentally diseased, etc) before this: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2007-06/msg00084.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2007-06/m... https://plus.google.com/102150693225130002912/posts/1vyfmNCYpi5 https://plus.google.com/102150693225130002912/posts/1vyfmNCY... http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/hibernation.html http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/hibernation.html https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/1/12/13 https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/1/12/13 The point at issue here is not whether Linus is right. Of course he's probably right -- he's Linus. The question is whether he's being civil. In the case you're referring to, pirtlj's comment was also out of line (although ironically apt to this whole discussion). Linus however did not have to respond the way he did.
peterkelly 14y ago
I prefer the first version. Saying something is "pure garbage" gets the point across far more effectively than being polite. I doubt the latter would have resulted in any coverage on tech blogs or got the attention of anyone at github. I don't agree with making direct personal criticisms towards people, but I think it's perfectly acceptable to be very blunt when responding to a bad idea (or patch, or whatever). In my own work I prefer blunt and honest feedback rather than attempts to avoid hurting my emotions. Of course it's always better if that criticism is combined with a constructive suggestions on how to fix the problem.
- primatology 14y ago
  But Github pull requests are not pure garbage. They work very, very well for plenty of other open source projects. To call them "pure garbage" is clear exaggeration. Honesty and courtesy are not mutually exclusive. "Github pull requests simply do not work for a project the size of the kernel" is terse, blunt, and still polite.
  - peterkelly 14y ago
    > To call them "pure garbage" is clear exaggeration. If that's true then fair enough, and I think your version of the comment is a nice middle ground. I've never actually used github myself, and was only commenting on his tone of voice. If something is truly pure garbage, I think it should be said so, but I guess that's not the case here.

ZenPsycho 14y ago

Yes, because nobody can calculate in advance the thousands of ways any particular utterance might be interpreted by someone. It's rather neurotic to try, and much easier to just say what you mean, and accept that haters gonna hate.

xaa 14y ago
I don't see that calling people "morons" or their work "garbage" as being that ambiguous.
- ZenPsycho 14y ago
  exactly
- 1SaltwaterC 14y ago
  There's a lot of ambiguity in your comment alone by taking things out of their context. "Git comes with a nice pull-request generation module, but github instead decided to replace it with their own totally inferior version. As a result, I consider github useless for these kinds of things. It's fine for hosting, but the pull requests and the online commit editing, are just pure garbage." If you think github people can school Linus at git usage, you're being delusional. There's a reason for that. The "moron" thing was targeted at a troll that deleted his comments. The "moron" comment starts with "Btw, Joseph". Now comes the 1000 points question: where's this Joseph fella in that thread? I've seen the original discussion before the troll deleted his comments. Did you?
  - xaa 14y ago
    If these were isolated incidents, I'd agree with you. We should give Linus the benefit of the doubt because of his substantial contributions to OSS. Unfortunately, this behavior is very well established. To take a few random examples of Linus calling people morons (and mentally diseased, etc) before this: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2007-06/msg00084.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2007-06/m... https://plus.google.com/102150693225130002912/posts/1vyfmNCYpi5 https://plus.google.com/102150693225130002912/posts/1vyfmNCY... http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/hibernation.html http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/hibernation.html https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/1/12/13 https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/1/12/13 The point at issue here is not whether Linus is right. Of course he's probably right -- he's Linus. The question is whether he's being civil. In the case you're referring to, pirtlj's comment was also out of line (although ironically apt to this whole discussion). Linus however did not have to respond the way he did.

peterkelly 14y ago

I prefer the first version. Saying something is "pure garbage" gets the point across far more effectively than being polite. I doubt the latter would have resulted in any coverage on tech blogs or got the attention of anyone at github. I don't agree with making direct personal criticisms towards people, but I think it's perfectly acceptable to be very blunt when responding to a bad idea (or patch, or whatever). In my own work I prefer blunt and honest feedback rather than attempts to avoid hurting my emotions. Of course it's always better if that criticism is combined with a constructive suggestions on how to fix the problem.

primatology 14y ago
But Github pull requests are not pure garbage. They work very, very well for plenty of other open source projects. To call them "pure garbage" is clear exaggeration. Honesty and courtesy are not mutually exclusive. "Github pull requests simply do not work for a project the size of the kernel" is terse, blunt, and still polite.
- peterkelly 14y ago
  > To call them "pure garbage" is clear exaggeration. If that's true then fair enough, and I think your version of the comment is a nice middle ground. I've never actually used github myself, and was only commenting on his tone of voice. If something is truly pure garbage, I think it should be said so, but I guess that's not the case here.