Hacker News Reader

Comment by orcdork | Hacker News Reader

In any other kind of social/business arrangement he would be politely but firmly escorted out, possibly by security, for this kind of behavior. Being right or wrong is irrelevant.

View on HN

Even when he's effectively CEO, visionary, and end-responsible for the business? He's the Big Boss of Linux, there is nobody above him in the chain of command. You're used to traditional businesses when there is no single end-responsible person, and when there is a public face for the company (like Jobs, Gates, etc), there is still a group of faceless shareholders above them that can choose to remove them. Not in this case. I like it myself, a dictatorship is a much more effective form of managing a software product.

And I'm pretty sure Gates and Jobs were similar in their time.

For example: "My First BillG Review" https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/06/16/my-first-billg-rev...

That was a very good read. Kinda sad at the end.

You know what? I'm glad he is doing it this way. Hard to imagine the kernel getting to this point if he did not communicate and scrutinise like this.

> Hard to imagine the kernel getting to this point if he did not communicate and scrutinise like this.

Not hard to imagine at all. He could exercise the same amount of authority without losing his shit and would get exactly the same result.

It's one of his flaws and that's fine, but arguing that this kind of behaviour is somehow helpful is just ridiculous.

To me, it's just reminiscent of the movie Whiplash. Sometimes it helps to lash (excuse the pun) out.

I can tell you, this sort of discussion happens in many Business settings, and doesn’t often end up involving security

Linus or the contributor? I can see an argument for either.

Let me guess, you do not take any responsibility for what you do at work. I know plenty of folks who would love to make decisions and like thinking that they can do better, yet when their decision takes everyone down, they refuse to share any responsibility for a bad decision. And if you are not being held accountable that means someone else pays for your mistakes in business.

Linus lashing out about something is usually tamer than most social and business blowups I have seen. The thing that really stands out is that he is usually right, gives clear direction, and only cares about the project.

You need to work in a wider variety of workplaces, if you genuinely believe that. Perhaps put another way: were Jobs or Ballmer ever escorted out for their obnoxious behaviours?

No, but they probably should have been.

The events of the past few weeks should serve as a reminder that what's historically been considered 'normal' behaviour in a workplace just because people have gotten away with it doesn't mean it's morally, ethically or legally justifiable.

When you create something and someone else comes and tries to improve it but fucks up and then tries to fix that by breaking some of the use cases for which you'd created your something in the first place, I'm going to cut you some slack if you go on a rant about what the correct solution is for your product.

I would expect you to do the same for Linus and his Linux, just as so many people do (did) for Steve Jobs and his Apple products.

how is Linus's behaviour not justifiable?

The main rule for kernel development is "you don't break userspace'

And yet John did. I think Linus is hard on those that break this rule because he has stressed this rule time and time again in the past.

Also, refusal to own up to a regression is kind of infuriating.

“now see what you've made me do” is what abusers say, y'know

Reply on news.ycombinator.com