6 ms·

> While I don't think I'd be as caustic as Linus, I can totally understand the level of exasperation that saga must have caused him given the series of issues i

> While I don't think I'd be as caustic as Linus, I can totally understand the level of exasperation that saga must have caused him given the series of issues in question. And at the point of this outburst, nothing appears to have worked: the stream of crap had kept on coming. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that being exasperated is justification to be arbitrarily caustic? There are plenty of open-source project leaders who deal with incorrigible people and do not talk this way.

cookiecaper 12y ago
It's a style choice, and I think both the choice to utilize it and the reception to it are heavily dependent on the participant's cultural background and upbringing. A lot of people see this kind of message, applied to someone who Really Should Know Better, as a form of tough love and half-tongue-in-cheek way to place extra emphasis on an important message. Some people can form that understanding as the basis of their relationship and continue on happily, able to both give and receive this kind of criticism. To others, it is completely foreign and incomprehensible and they don't see the tongue-in-cheek at all and just interpret it as blatant, outright hostility, which is generally not the actual subtext.
vidarh 12y ago
I'm saying that sufficient exasperation makes it understandable whether or not it is justified. Linus is human. Humans are not flawless. > There are plenty of open-source project leaders who deal with incorrigible people and do not talk this way. And a lot of people who "do not talk this way" are a lot worse by dealing with these kind of issues through backstabbing or veiled insults. While some are saint-like and never say or do a bad thing to contributors, I don't buy that the lack of abrasive language in any way is a reliable indicator of civility.
- Diederich 12y ago
  I think Linus (and others) choose to stay verbally abusive because there they exist in a community that both facilitates and defends that poor behaviour. There is a choice to be made. The choice stems from the basic mindset: am I fundamentally ok with verbally abusing people around me, or should I try to stop doing that? I don't know what's in Linus' mind. Perhaps he is utterly incapable of never resorting to verbal abuse. But I doubt that's true.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    It is in part a cultural issue. Realise that this form of "abuse" does not carry much weight in a lot of cultures. A lot of the strongest criticism of Linus comes from a cultural background where people are hyper-sensitive to direct language.
    - Diederich 12y ago
      Verbal abuse and direct language are unrelated. Direct language, without verbal abuse: "I am upset and angry that you keep making the same mistakes." That's clearly communicating how he feels, without verbally abusing his audience.
      - bronson 12y ago
        "I am upset and angry that you keep making the same mistakes." No, remember the context: you've already used nice, direct words, and Kai has ignored them multiple times. Now you need to shake Kai's cage. Linus might have gone overboard, but his technique has more chance of success than yours. Also, this is not a sterile corporate environment. The LKML is more like a dive bar than Applebee's and that's the way they like it.
        Diederich 12y ago
        If you equate 'sterile' with 'not verbal abuse', I suppose that's true. Given that direct words were ignored multiple times, I would suggest that the next action is simply to not merge, without comment, after a final "You are ignoring us, we can't the time to keep correcting you. Your bad merges will be ignored without comment." Such a path will get a developer's attention, and it involves no verbal abuse. A problem with flinging abusive words around is that it artificially and needlessly limits the diversity of your community. Though, it might be that that's t he intent: "The LKML is more like a dive bar than Applebee's and that's the way they like it."
        mcantor 12y ago
        This debate exists on a spectrum of gray areas, but I'm pretty sure "you should be retroactively aborted" crosses the line from "shaking someone's cage" to "flagrantly excessive verbal abuse", if for no other reason than it equate's the target's worth as a human being with their skill as a developer, which is obviously not a healthy viewpoint.

cookiecaper 12y ago

It's a style choice, and I think both the choice to utilize it and the reception to it are heavily dependent on the participant's cultural background and upbringing. A lot of people see this kind of message, applied to someone who Really Should Know Better, as a form of tough love and half-tongue-in-cheek way to place extra emphasis on an important message. Some people can form that understanding as the basis of their relationship and continue on happily, able to both give and receive this kind of criticism. To others, it is completely foreign and incomprehensible and they don't see the tongue-in-cheek at all and just interpret it as blatant, outright hostility, which is generally not the actual subtext.

vidarh 12y ago

I'm saying that sufficient exasperation makes it understandable whether or not it is justified. Linus is human. Humans are not flawless. > There are plenty of open-source project leaders who deal with incorrigible people and do not talk this way. And a lot of people who "do not talk this way" are a lot worse by dealing with these kind of issues through backstabbing or veiled insults. While some are saint-like and never say or do a bad thing to contributors, I don't buy that the lack of abrasive language in any way is a reliable indicator of civility.

Diederich 12y ago
I think Linus (and others) choose to stay verbally abusive because there they exist in a community that both facilitates and defends that poor behaviour. There is a choice to be made. The choice stems from the basic mindset: am I fundamentally ok with verbally abusing people around me, or should I try to stop doing that? I don't know what's in Linus' mind. Perhaps he is utterly incapable of never resorting to verbal abuse. But I doubt that's true.
- vidarh 12y ago
  It is in part a cultural issue. Realise that this form of "abuse" does not carry much weight in a lot of cultures. A lot of the strongest criticism of Linus comes from a cultural background where people are hyper-sensitive to direct language.
  - Diederich 12y ago
    Verbal abuse and direct language are unrelated. Direct language, without verbal abuse: "I am upset and angry that you keep making the same mistakes." That's clearly communicating how he feels, without verbally abusing his audience.
    - bronson 12y ago
      "I am upset and angry that you keep making the same mistakes." No, remember the context: you've already used nice, direct words, and Kai has ignored them multiple times. Now you need to shake Kai's cage. Linus might have gone overboard, but his technique has more chance of success than yours. Also, this is not a sterile corporate environment. The LKML is more like a dive bar than Applebee's and that's the way they like it.
      - Diederich 12y ago
        If you equate 'sterile' with 'not verbal abuse', I suppose that's true. Given that direct words were ignored multiple times, I would suggest that the next action is simply to not merge, without comment, after a final "You are ignoring us, we can't the time to keep correcting you. Your bad merges will be ignored without comment." Such a path will get a developer's attention, and it involves no verbal abuse. A problem with flinging abusive words around is that it artificially and needlessly limits the diversity of your community. Though, it might be that that's t he intent: "The LKML is more like a dive bar than Applebee's and that's the way they like it."
      - mcantor 12y ago
        This debate exists on a spectrum of gray areas, but I'm pretty sure "you should be retroactively aborted" crosses the line from "shaking someone's cage" to "flagrantly excessive verbal abuse", if for no other reason than it equate's the target's worth as a human being with their skill as a developer, which is obviously not a healthy viewpoint.