6 ms·

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

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.
      - Diederich 12y ago
        I'm a big believer in 'spectrum of gray areas'. This particular quote from Linus is particularly bad. What I want to firmly point out is the general community's level of acceptance of verbally abusive language. There could be a debate about what constitutes verbal abuse, on a case by case basis. And that would turn into a mess. What I'd love to see is the community acknowledge that using and even encouraging such language is bad for everybody, and it's bad for the open source movement, big time.
        mcantor 12y ago
        I agree with you. The problem I'm seeing in this thread relates to this point: > There could be a debate about what constitutes verbal abuse, on a case by case basis. And that would turn into a mess. Right now, a lot of people simply do not make the distinction between verbal abuse and direct language. In other words, they are arguing that we should not bother discouraging verbal abuse because it "shouldn't" affect targets any more adversely than direct but non-abusive language. I guess it's a debate one can approach from many angles. But maybe you're right, perhaps focusing on highlighting why one thing constitutes verbal abuse and others don't is too semantic of an argument, and it's more productive to focus on the fact that just because one person has never been truly bothered by verbal abuse doesn't mean that should be the universal expectation.
        Diederich 12y ago
        Yeah, I don't really have anything more specific in mind. I think your analysis is spot on.
        12y ago
nitrogen 12y ago
In the same video interview where Linus famously gestured toward Nvidia, he also said that he believes people capable of being offended should be offended. I suppose one could think of it as a way of filtering out people who focus too much on the messenger and medium rather than the actual message.
tbrownaw 12y ago
Random theory time: People who are harmful to the project, should be removed from the project. If you're not a company but an "open" project that can't fire people, you pretty much have to do this my making them not want to say. So if someone causes enough trouble, just pile on the verbal abuse until they get fed up and leave.
- Diederich 12y ago
  I think this is another false dichotomy. It's quite possible to efficiently limit the damage someone can cause to a project without resorting to verbal abuse. Most simply, refuse to merge their stuff unless it has quality. You don't have to hold their hand; say: "You are making the same mistakes over and over again. Your stuff isn't going to get merged, and we're not going to spend any time explaining to you why."
  - tetha 12y ago
    > and we're not going to spend any time explaining to you why." "any more time", please. The context should imply this, but some situations require high clarity.
    - Diederich 12y ago
      I don't think 'high clarity' requires the use of verbally abusive language.
      - Dylan16807 12y ago
        That is both obviously true and bears no connection to the post you're replying to.

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.
    - Diederich 12y ago
      I'm a big believer in 'spectrum of gray areas'. This particular quote from Linus is particularly bad. What I want to firmly point out is the general community's level of acceptance of verbally abusive language. There could be a debate about what constitutes verbal abuse, on a case by case basis. And that would turn into a mess. What I'd love to see is the community acknowledge that using and even encouraging such language is bad for everybody, and it's bad for the open source movement, big time.
      - mcantor 12y ago
        I agree with you. The problem I'm seeing in this thread relates to this point: > There could be a debate about what constitutes verbal abuse, on a case by case basis. And that would turn into a mess. Right now, a lot of people simply do not make the distinction between verbal abuse and direct language. In other words, they are arguing that we should not bother discouraging verbal abuse because it "shouldn't" affect targets any more adversely than direct but non-abusive language. I guess it's a debate one can approach from many angles. But maybe you're right, perhaps focusing on highlighting why one thing constitutes verbal abuse and others don't is too semantic of an argument, and it's more productive to focus on the fact that just because one person has never been truly bothered by verbal abuse doesn't mean that should be the universal expectation.
        Diederich 12y ago
        Yeah, I don't really have anything more specific in mind. I think your analysis is spot on.
        12y ago

nitrogen 12y ago

In the same video interview where Linus famously gestured toward Nvidia, he also said that he believes people capable of being offended should be offended. I suppose one could think of it as a way of filtering out people who focus too much on the messenger and medium rather than the actual message.

tbrownaw 12y ago

Random theory time: People who are harmful to the project, should be removed from the project. If you're not a company but an "open" project that can't fire people, you pretty much have to do this my making them not want to say. So if someone causes enough trouble, just pile on the verbal abuse until they get fed up and leave.

Diederich 12y ago
I think this is another false dichotomy. It's quite possible to efficiently limit the damage someone can cause to a project without resorting to verbal abuse. Most simply, refuse to merge their stuff unless it has quality. You don't have to hold their hand; say: "You are making the same mistakes over and over again. Your stuff isn't going to get merged, and we're not going to spend any time explaining to you why."
- tetha 12y ago
  > and we're not going to spend any time explaining to you why." "any more time", please. The context should imply this, but some situations require high clarity.
  - Diederich 12y ago
    I don't think 'high clarity' requires the use of verbally abusive language.
    - Dylan16807 12y ago
      That is both obviously true and bears no connection to the post you're replying to.