Torvalds is an abusive leader and I don't understand why people keep workin on Linux under him. Are kernel devs paid? Is it worth being abused in front of the entire world because your boss has the emotional maturity of a child?
I can understand how some take personal offense when faced with criticism, but it is little more than that. Linus is quite good at illustrating the problems with the code, backing up what he says with extensive knowledge.
As soon as someone owns their mistake, the problem moves towards resolution.
It is really not uncommon for strong language to emerge when dealing with people doing the wrong thing, especially when they should know better.
I have stripped down and been stripped down when dealing with crap before.
Trying not to offend skips around the issue: it's crap, and you should know better.
It's entirely possible, and indeed normal and accepted, to communicate in a straightforward and clear way without insulting people. Linus could do that. He chooses not to.
I very much doubt Linus goes out of his way to offend, rather that he's a Finn, and their culture tends to be blunt.
I'm Australian. I'm blunt, and to the point.
A colleague left a backdoor in software that got deployed. The conversation started with, "What the fuck where you thinking?"
Nobody got offended, it was a valid question with valid tone.
You can't exactly compare, "You didn't test this." with some of the rants broadcast on shows like, "Kitchen Nightmares".
[0] http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1612.2/00545.html
Professional communication in a public setting means not being rude and offensive. If my best friend shows me something and I say "what the fuck were you thinking?", that's one thing. That's not what's happening here.
What would be lost by Linus just saying "this clearly doesn't work. Don't submit things without compile-testing in the future."?
I seriously do not understand why you think it's insulting. Because a swear word was used for emphasis?
And they weren't a friend. A colleague. In a professional review of their conduct.
What would be lost is this: standards.
Linus shouldn't have had to deal with the issue, and that was immediately acknowledged by the correspondents, who truly did not seem offended, "my bad".
I think it's insulting because it's an implied value judgment on a person as a person, not just a judgment on the work.
I don't understand why you don't think it's insulting. If I'm trying to do my job, and you come in and shit all over me in public because I made a mistake, which one of us is the problem? Would you really want to work for someone who thinks it's okay to do that as a management technique?
The only implication of judgement upon the person is one you have applied yourself.
It isn't even one the recipients have seen.
The judgement is entirely on the work: seen by how the fixed work is gratefully added to the whole, in a manner befitting the project.
If a Finn wished to insult you and not just your work, there would be no implication. It would be explicit.
In the context of any job I've ever worked this is unacceptable language and if a senior colleague, in particular, talked to me like that he'd be taking his arse home in a paper bag.
You are calling Linus Torvalds a person with 'the emotional maturity of a child' which is a personal attack and far more abusive.
You aren't seriously suggesting that the future of Linux (one of the largest open-source projects backed by multi-billion companies) depends on one single guy?
That's a good reason to not use Linux
There's a much better chance that kernel writing would have been fully automated by AI or evolved through much advanced genetic algorithms by the time Linus Torvalds passes away.
Linus could die tomorrow, and then what?
Yes, kind of - there's a significant business advantage in having your company's work be included in the upstream kernel, so it's often the case that some individual is employed and paid a good salary by Intel or someone and their job involves getting code into Linux or maintaining it in Linux. Which leads to the weird situation where you're bound by the feedback / technical direction of this person who isn't in turn answerable to your company.
This isn't exclusive to Linux alone; the same thing happens in other open-source communities.
By the way, Linus isn't their boss. Maybe you should find out how the project is organized before commenting on it.
Linus is the de facto head honcho and enjoys special privilege.
You didn't answer my questions. Plus, you talk about not having standing to express an opinion, but that's precisely what you're doing.
> Why shouldn't someone have an opinion on things?
The commenter I replied to doesn't know whether kernel devs are paid, thinks this is a case of getting yelled at by your boss, and seems to not understand why people work on the project.
Does that answer your question?
> Who are you to tell the parent commenter not to?
The parent commenter is calling someone "abusive" in a situation that they clearly aren't involved in and seem pretty clueless about. If I suggest they not do that, does it really matter who I am?