3 ms·

This is a low-quality essay that is not worth discussing directly. (Meta-note: see, it's possible to have firm opinions without being abusive). I just want to

This is a low-quality essay that is not worth discussing directly. (Meta-note: see, it's possible to have firm opinions without being abusive). I just want to add that there are plenty of outstanding engineers with very high standards who lead projects without going on the kinds of abusive rants that Linus is known for. For example: Roberto Ierusalimschy (Lua), Matz (Ruby), Ian Lance Taylor (Binutils, GCC, Gold linker), Shawn Hargreaves (Allegro, works at Microsoft now), Jeff Dean & Sanjay Ghemawat (two of Google's most senior engineers), just to name a few. These guys don't compromise their opinions or let crap into the code-base just to be nice. But they're all really nice guys who don't rip into people for being wrong. When you see messages from them on a mailing list, you get a warm feeling because you know they are going to be insightful, accurate, terse, helpful, and friendly. Some people like the machismo that comes from people like Linus. It's like watching superhero movies and rooting for the guy who kicks ass against the bad guys. But I think ultimately this is not a healthy way to lead a community. If you speak in a way that triggers people's defense mechanisms, you make it harder to rationally evaluate the issues. If you ridicule people for their opinions, you aren't giving them an out that lets them change their mind later; a person is inclined to dig their heels in rather than look foolish.

samuellevy 14y ago
As another commenter mentioned - it's somewhat of a selection bias; Linus doesn't go around spouting hate-speech, but when he has jack of someone pestering him with an idea/patch/whatever that he has (many times, repeatedly) turned down, then he'll stop being polite about it. Could he ignore it? Perhaps. I prefer that he'll let you know, in no uncertain terms, to go away. These rants aren't actually that frequent, but you'd think that they were constant from the way you hear about them. It's not really about having firm opinions without being abusive. It's about being called abusive for having firm opinions.
vacri 14y ago
"This is a low-quality essay that is not worth discussing directly" and "This is a stupid essay not worth my time" are saying the same thing, and providing the same level of abuse; one is just using more highbrow language in an attempt to feign politeness. Avoiding coarse language does not mean you're not being snide or offensive, and people hiding snide commentary in nice prose is one of my pet hates.
- Confusion 14y ago
  Emphatically: NO! That is not how language and communication work. You can't strip away words and connotations and say 'these two sentences say the same thing'. The sentences use different words, with subtly different meanings, that convey different intentions and feelings. These different words all exist, specifically because we want to be able to convey such nuanced differences. Your interpretation of these sentences only interprets the basic fact being communicated and discards all the other aspects of the communication. Interestingly, if that basic fact offends you, then there is nothing words can do, if you aren't sensitive to what those words are intended to do: soften the impact of criticism. Nuances in words are only meaningless to insensitive receivers.
  - vacri 14y ago
    In the context provided, with the smug 'educational' "meta note" appended, it is a patronising and demeaning comment. Haberman has effectively said "we won't discuss the merits of the piece, but I'm still going to score a political point at the article's expense". It's a bit like when Ebert said "Games aren't art, and there is nothing more to discuss". Either make your point and allow discussion, or avoid discussion. Saying 'you can't make your point but I can make mine' is hypocritical. Also, the two comments I equate are the same in essence - both refuse to discuss the item citing poor quality. There is no real criticism in it, because there is no actual discussion of the merits. Where is the subtlety? What I'm pointing out is that his blanket shut-out without discussion is actually an offensive tactic - one I personally find more offensive than Torvald's direct 'that idea is stupid' style.
    - haberman 14y ago
      > it is a patronising and demeaning comment. To be patronizing and demeaning require intent. You are reading intent in my comment that simply does not exist. The article is low-quality because it does nothing but tear down strawmen. No one is arguing that people can't have opinions and defend them. No one is arguing that people should accept bad ideas or code just to be nice. No one is arguing that opinion is a democracy (!?). The whole thing is setting up a false dichotomy and then praising Linus and others for not being accommodating wet noodles. Since the main premise of the essay is this false dichotomy, I noticed that my first sentence disproves this premise by counterexample. I didn't write this comment with a patronizing or demeaning attitude. I can see why you would take it that way, because I can see a person writing a thing like that with a snarky attitude, but I did not.

samuellevy 14y ago

As another commenter mentioned - it's somewhat of a selection bias; Linus doesn't go around spouting hate-speech, but when he has jack of someone pestering him with an idea/patch/whatever that he has (many times, repeatedly) turned down, then he'll stop being polite about it. Could he ignore it? Perhaps. I prefer that he'll let you know, in no uncertain terms, to go away. These rants aren't actually that frequent, but you'd think that they were constant from the way you hear about them. It's not really about having firm opinions without being abusive. It's about being called abusive for having firm opinions.

vacri 14y ago

"This is a low-quality essay that is not worth discussing directly" and "This is a stupid essay not worth my time" are saying the same thing, and providing the same level of abuse; one is just using more highbrow language in an attempt to feign politeness. Avoiding coarse language does not mean you're not being snide or offensive, and people hiding snide commentary in nice prose is one of my pet hates.

Confusion 14y ago
Emphatically: NO! That is not how language and communication work. You can't strip away words and connotations and say 'these two sentences say the same thing'. The sentences use different words, with subtly different meanings, that convey different intentions and feelings. These different words all exist, specifically because we want to be able to convey such nuanced differences. Your interpretation of these sentences only interprets the basic fact being communicated and discards all the other aspects of the communication. Interestingly, if that basic fact offends you, then there is nothing words can do, if you aren't sensitive to what those words are intended to do: soften the impact of criticism. Nuances in words are only meaningless to insensitive receivers.
- vacri 14y ago
  In the context provided, with the smug 'educational' "meta note" appended, it is a patronising and demeaning comment. Haberman has effectively said "we won't discuss the merits of the piece, but I'm still going to score a political point at the article's expense". It's a bit like when Ebert said "Games aren't art, and there is nothing more to discuss". Either make your point and allow discussion, or avoid discussion. Saying 'you can't make your point but I can make mine' is hypocritical. Also, the two comments I equate are the same in essence - both refuse to discuss the item citing poor quality. There is no real criticism in it, because there is no actual discussion of the merits. Where is the subtlety? What I'm pointing out is that his blanket shut-out without discussion is actually an offensive tactic - one I personally find more offensive than Torvald's direct 'that idea is stupid' style.
  - haberman 14y ago
    > it is a patronising and demeaning comment. To be patronizing and demeaning require intent. You are reading intent in my comment that simply does not exist. The article is low-quality because it does nothing but tear down strawmen. No one is arguing that people can't have opinions and defend them. No one is arguing that people should accept bad ideas or code just to be nice. No one is arguing that opinion is a democracy (!?). The whole thing is setting up a false dichotomy and then praising Linus and others for not being accommodating wet noodles. Since the main premise of the essay is this false dichotomy, I noticed that my first sentence disproves this premise by counterexample. I didn't write this comment with a patronizing or demeaning attitude. I can see why you would take it that way, because I can see a person writing a thing like that with a snarky attitude, but I did not.