3 ms·

The reason why Linus (or anybody else) might want to act 'professionally' (or nicely, whatever) is because some people feel bad when they are shouted at. It's c

The reason why Linus (or anybody else) might want to act 'professionally' (or nicely, whatever) is because some people feel bad when they are shouted at. It's completely valid to argue that shouting is just a culturally different, but acceptable way of expressing one's thoughts but then you need to be aware that you'll potentially lose people who just simply hate this form of communication. So this discussion is not about whether shouting and cursing is morally acceptable or not. It's about who's going to make compromises, who's able to make compromises and who are we going to lose in the process. What Sarah (probably) implicitly says is 'I hate this, and I don't want to work in an environment like this - and there might be other people who feel the same'. If Linus thinks that he cannot work in a different way then (because he's pretty important for Linux) probably Sarah is going to be sacrificed in some way. That might be all right, but again: this is not a moral issue.

jonahx 13y ago
>because some people feel bad when they are shouted at. while people tolerate it at different levels, the phrase "some people" is misleading: almost nobody likes to be shouted at, or even feels neutral about it. >It's completely valid to argue that shouting is just a culturally different, but acceptable way of expressing one's thoughts but then you need to be aware that you'll potentially lose people who just simply hate this form of communication. this is true, but it's worth noting the same logical argument applies to physically hitting someone. and indeed, in other times and other cultures this was and is acceptable. and whenever those social norms have changed, there are people making what is essentially the same argument linus is making (just substituting "hitting" for "yelling").
- nawitus 13y ago
  >while people tolerate it at different levels, the phrase "some people" is misleading: almost nobody likes to be shouted at, or even feels neutral about it. Well, most people don't like criticism either, even when it's constructive. Some things are necessary even if people dislike them, but I don't think shouting is like that.
derefr 13y ago
I don't think that Linus imagined that the result of his messages wouldn't be people feeling bad. Feeling bad is the whole point. Negative reinforcement; hitting the puppy with a newspaper so it won't shit on your carpet again. I think the question is, for any kernel developer--do you care enough about Linux that you want to be negatively reinforced when you're being stupid, or do you care more about feeling good all the time?
- Xylakant 13y ago
  See, you need to read up on puppy education. Hitting the puppet with a newspaper will not achieve the desired goal - now the puppy is confused and afraid.[1] Same is true in work environments: You criticise the work, do not insult the person. Otherwise problems will be swept under the rug until they start to rot and can't be hidden any more. [1] You can actually achieve the exact opposite: Peeing is a gesture of submission for dog puppies, so if you yell at them, they might just pee again.
  - derefr 13y ago
    Right--and indeed, what Linus was doing here was criticizing the work ("the work" not being the commit itself--there are plenty of horrible commits submitted to the kernel every day--but rather the process that allowed this commit to end up in a stable merge patchset.) The puppy-newspaper thing was intended to just be an evocative metaphor--I'm well-aware that hitting actual puppies with actual newspapers doesn't help anything. This is mostly because it's hard to understand, whether as a puppy or a human, exactly what you did that led you to being hit with a newspaper. Harsh words are much clearer than newspapers in giving causal structure. (Though, if the stimulus-response is direct enough, words aren't exactly necessary; those "invisible fence" shock/noise collars for dogs do work, since the dog is given a much tighter feedback loop. As soon as they leave the defined zone, a pain-signal begins; as soon as they re-enter the zone, it ends. They can do science to figure out what is and is not painful, rather than being presented with a punishment and then having to use abductive logic to derive (that is, to guess at) possible causes. On the other hand, it is very hard to do science about where is or is not safe to defecate, unless you have the runs. ;)

jonahx 13y ago

>because some people feel bad when they are shouted at. while people tolerate it at different levels, the phrase "some people" is misleading: almost nobody likes to be shouted at, or even feels neutral about it. >It's completely valid to argue that shouting is just a culturally different, but acceptable way of expressing one's thoughts but then you need to be aware that you'll potentially lose people who just simply hate this form of communication. this is true, but it's worth noting the same logical argument applies to physically hitting someone. and indeed, in other times and other cultures this was and is acceptable. and whenever those social norms have changed, there are people making what is essentially the same argument linus is making (just substituting "hitting" for "yelling").

nawitus 13y ago
>while people tolerate it at different levels, the phrase "some people" is misleading: almost nobody likes to be shouted at, or even feels neutral about it. Well, most people don't like criticism either, even when it's constructive. Some things are necessary even if people dislike them, but I don't think shouting is like that.

derefr 13y ago

I don't think that Linus imagined that the result of his messages wouldn't be people feeling bad. Feeling bad is the whole point. Negative reinforcement; hitting the puppy with a newspaper so it won't shit on your carpet again. I think the question is, for any kernel developer--do you care enough about Linux that you want to be negatively reinforced when you're being stupid, or do you care more about feeling good all the time?

Xylakant 13y ago
See, you need to read up on puppy education. Hitting the puppet with a newspaper will not achieve the desired goal - now the puppy is confused and afraid.[1] Same is true in work environments: You criticise the work, do not insult the person. Otherwise problems will be swept under the rug until they start to rot and can't be hidden any more. [1] You can actually achieve the exact opposite: Peeing is a gesture of submission for dog puppies, so if you yell at them, they might just pee again.
- derefr 13y ago
  Right--and indeed, what Linus was doing here was criticizing the work ("the work" not being the commit itself--there are plenty of horrible commits submitted to the kernel every day--but rather the process that allowed this commit to end up in a stable merge patchset.) The puppy-newspaper thing was intended to just be an evocative metaphor--I'm well-aware that hitting actual puppies with actual newspapers doesn't help anything. This is mostly because it's hard to understand, whether as a puppy or a human, exactly what you did that led you to being hit with a newspaper. Harsh words are much clearer than newspapers in giving causal structure. (Though, if the stimulus-response is direct enough, words aren't exactly necessary; those "invisible fence" shock/noise collars for dogs do work, since the dog is given a much tighter feedback loop. As soon as they leave the defined zone, a pain-signal begins; as soon as they re-enter the zone, it ends. They can do science to figure out what is and is not painful, rather than being presented with a punishment and then having to use abductive logic to derive (that is, to guess at) possible causes. On the other hand, it is very hard to do science about where is or is not safe to defecate, unless you have the runs. ;)