Hacker News Reader

Comment by ealexhudson | Hacker News Reader

Being able to call out bullshit doesn't mean having to curse it out. All Linus needs to do is say something like "I don't understand why this is here, and I'm not merging it until I do", rather than "They do literally insane things. They do things that do not make sense". The latter is not a technical argument, and it doesn't provide accuracy or clarity about next steps.

"So somebody isn't telling the truth here. Somebody is pushing complete garbage for unclear reasons" - maybe the patches are bad. Or maybe there is an undisclosed vulnerability (like https://skyfallattack.com/ ?) that needs this "garbage" to mitigate it, and no-one got Linus properly in the loop. If it's the latter, all this shouting and cursing about "They do things that do not make sense" has likely attracted the attention of people interested in such things...

View on HN

Sometimes in a sea of noise it's good to have someone highly qualified shouting to make people sit up and really pay attention. Like now, because it is critically needed.

Really? It's a 10 patch series. Patches 4 & 5 have attracted high-quality low-curse technical discussion of <10 mails.

Linus' initial response to patch 9 appears to be missing from the mailing list, so it's not even clear to me he intended it to be made public.

Where is the sea of noise you think justifies this?

>> Being able to call out bullshit doesn't mean having to curse it out.

Here we go.

>> All Linus needs to do is say something like

And all you need to do is be that nice and be as brilliant as Linus is.

Oh, it's harder to be that smart than it is to be that nice? Maybe consider that for people as highly gifted as Linus, it actually isn't.

What you take for granted as normal behavior isn't always normal to others, especially those at the outliers of skill and intelligence.

Manners were invented to prevent disease and stuff, but they're also used by the aristocracy to differentiate themselves from the rabble. Complaining about word choice and tone is an example of the latter. "Linus doesn't talk the way good people do."

I think you're misreading my comment. The original post was "we need this brashness", my point is, we don't.

If a specific individual is unable to communicate without that, that's a totally different matter - being able to accommodate a wide church of people is a crucial diversity matter.

Would it have been clearer if I had said "All someone in a project leadership position needs to say ..." ? I'm arguing against that the notion that this approach is necessary, not that it shouldn't be accommodated.

I'm inclined to disagree on all points.

As sundvor already pointed out, Linus's cursing works. He uses it for emphasis, to bring attention to bear where it's needed. Being polite would likely be less effective.

> If a specific individual is unable to communicate without that, that's a totally different matter - being able to accommodate a wide church of people is a crucial diversity matter.

So shouldn't you be OK with Linus cursing?

I disagree here too, though. Cursing is a choice, not a disability.

If, say, a firm fires someone for failing to maintain a civil tongue, I'd hardly call that a diversity problem. It could be quite reasonable, depending on the firm.

> I'm arguing against that the notion that this approach is necessary, not that it shouldn't be accommodated

Define 'necessary'. Would the kernel implode if Linus were more polite? Of course not, but I still agree with sundvor that Linus uses it as an effective tool. He's not just an angry child with poor impulse control.

Linus' cursing works because he's Linus, not because he is cursing. There is really no evidence that if he uses strong but less abusive language the work won't get done.

>> There is really no evidence that if he uses strong but less abusive language the work won't get done.

That is because there is no other copy of Linus. There's plenty of other lesser software developers who can't do a tenth of what Linus did in his life.

There's also no other copy of Donald Knuth, or Dennis Ritchie, or Alan Kay, or any other computer luminary. There's also no other copy of any "other lesser software developer" or you or me or the baristas at your closest Starbucks. What you've said in response is "the sky is blue": indisputably true and essentially irrelevant.

I'd argue that in fact, there is circumstantial evidence that brilliant computer programmers can get work done without occasionally making those they interact with miserable: that evidence is the fact that most brilliant computer programmers get work done without occasionally making those they interact with miserable. There is nothing that requires Linus to make strong points by jumping and down and screaming. That's an affection he deliberately chooses.

There's a strong notion through this whole comment thread of "if he didn't do that, nobody would listen to him," which is absolute nonsense. People don't listen to him because of these kinds of outbursts, they listen to him because he's Linus Torvalds. They listen to him in spite of these kinds of outbursts.

>People don't listen to him because of these kinds of outbursts

Check the title of the thread you're in, and how many comments it has. People absolutely listen to him when he has these outbursts. It's usually a solid indicator there's something worth getting outraged about.

And that somehow entitles him to insult everyone he wants to, so frequently?

> so frequently

I am guessing you don't read the Linux mailing list if you think Linus goes off like this regularly. Maybe you're confusing it with the OpenBSD list and Theo.

Linus' comments like this make the news because of the content. If he did this all the time - frequently, as you posit - it wouldn't make the news all that often, as it would be normal. Linus isn't a guy who flies off the handle with regularity.

>The original post was "we need this brashness", my point is, we don't.

I think we do when communicating with some people. It's all a matter of context. To 99.99% of people being brash is just going to be a hindrance. For some however it's required for them to see what their actions are not up to standard.

That's my 2c's anyway. I've never had a situation (within the tech industry) where I've needed to be so on the nose as Linus, but a couple of times I've got close after repeatedly telling one person their actions were VERY wrong and risked doing the whole entire team damage.

The original post was "we need this brashness", my point is, we don't.

Anything that speaks for all of us is bullshit, so both of you are offtopic. Anybody who pretends to speak for what "we need" is a charlatan. You don't need to address what one person says their preference for universal organization is. Don't feed the trolls.

How much attention would this have gotten it if was a polite note somewhere?

Maybe less. Probably not more ....

Also, what's wrong with cursing? Are our sensibilities really that delicate?

BULLSHIT (I hear you like it). It's about basic etiquette, and treating humans as humans. No amount of gifted skill is a threshold for crossing that behavior barrier.

>>No amount of gifted skill is a threshold for crossing that behavior barrier.

Sure there is. You would rather have Linus in your life who yells at people than not. Linus being an asshole is something you have to deal with to get access to his intelligence. I suggest you make peace with this understanding, as it applies to far more people than Linus.

Having a Linus who doesn't yell at people will be any day better than having one who abuses others at will. He needs to take anger management classes. We could seriously do with a little less high-headedness in the world.

>> Having a Linus who doesn't yell at people

And having my cake and eating it too in every scenario would be great. That's not how things work all the time. It's up to you to deal with it, not Linus to change. He's the scarce resource. He has the leverage. You're just someone on the Internet mad.

Even if I was offended by his communication style, I agree that his technical acumen ought to afford him freedom to communicate as he pleases (possibly limiting to the realm of his expertise).

I've found this quote by Neil Gaiman to be applicable to more than just Freelancing:

> You get work however you get work, but people keep working in a freelance world (and more and more of todays world is freelance), because their work is good, because they are easy to get along with and because they deliver the work on time. And you don’t even need all three! Two out of three is fine. People will tolerate how unpleasant you are if your work is good and you deliver it on time. People will forgive the lateness of your work if it is good and they like you. And you don’t have to be as good as everyone else if you’re on time and it’s always a pleasure to hear from you

Again, your understanding is that intelligent people have the right to abuse. That's just akin to supporting oppression of weaker by stronger. That might be how things are for a lot of people, but not how they should be. Also, mad internet people have historically changed a lot of things, so I'm justified in showing my disapproval even if it won't change Linus. Changing at least one upcoming Linus in life would be a good enough goal.

>> right to abuse.

Equating harsh even personally offensive language to "abuse" is the biggest disagreement here.

Many people, myself included, prescribe to axiom of "sticks and stones will break my bones but words can never hurt me" I understand that the current generation believes that feels are the most important thing ever...

I reject the idea that a person has the right not be offended, and I reject the idea that words on a linux mailing list are abuse

Started writing a response before reading your own, I think you've nailed my perspective on the matter.

Abuse is not offense, offense is not abuse.

Oxford dictionary says otherwise. Replied to the parent comment with references.

It doesn't matter what meaning you personally attribute to it, harsh, deliberately insulting language is "verbal abuse". References:

1. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/abuse

(Look for meaning 3)

2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abuse

Look for 'verbal abuse'.

Maybe you should be more concerned about people who are actually threats to you, rather than those who just use language you don't like.

I'm already more concerned about the people who are an actual threat to me, just that I'm also concerned about prolific people using abusive language to insult lesser intelligent people. If I write in the tone that everybody else here is writing in support of Linus' abusive language, I'd say "I am what I am, get over it".

No, it will not. Because then we get a Linus who would have to maintain a filter as well as his technical expertise. The later would suffer, I'm shure.

While I believe your perspective to be reasonable, you do realize that your first sentence undermines your credibility to assert there validity.

Sometimes like for like treatment is necessary.

For random future internet individuals, i know, i know: *there should be their should be its...

Thank you for saying what I couldn’t put into words.

If you’re worried about ‘cursing’ and you seriously think that it’s something important in the scope of this discussion around security and the grand scale of negligence afoot, I believe you may need to re-evaluate your values.

In fact, the idea that you’re even bringing up such minor language at such a time really disappoints me.

Yeah, it's weird... I get why people would want to call Torvalds out on acting abusively, but focussing on the 'bad words' is odd.

Would I be correct in assuming that the majority of commenters here are from the US? (Not trying to throw shade on you Americans, just that you do tend to get needlessly flustered about swearing)

> Being able to call out bullshit doesn't mean having to curse it out

Sometimes this is actually necessary to get heard, and have the issue taken seriously. It helps providing the feedback that something REALLY wrong just happened and needs to be addressed immediately.

Imagine a sergeant talking to a trainee. What's the most efficient ?

- "Dear soldier, I think the way you handle your weapon is going to get you killed in a few moment. You should probably change that appropriately. If I may provide you this advice, of corse."

- "Stop this shit now! You're going to shoot yourself!"

Of all replies defending Linus I've read, this one hits home run.

Linus himself admits[1] that his outrageous insults are sort of "jokey" and a hyperbole. That's the surface. The underlying tone is to get attention without getting drowned by political correctness.

[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ017D_JOPY

I do agree his language and tone can be very painful to read. Imagine getting called a moron in front of the whole world, when you could have private conversation first with a smaller group.

When I read his reply, I could feel the pain. I imagined I would reply back to him and say "well fuck you too." When I finished reading the email, regardless of who is more right or more wrong, I can understand and feel his frustration. I would absolutely go mad if someone messes with something I care about, and then have the guts to do fact checks.

But I still think there is room to offer an olive branch, honestly. But given how busy he is, and how many shitty patches they get, I can understand his frustration.

That being said, it almost seems like no one other than him, can do a better job in keeping up with the quality if he has to be the one yelling all the time. When Linus is no longer involved (for any reasons), can Linux kernel project continues to have quality code?

A couple years ago Linus shared his views on insult: respect should be earned. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ017D_JOPY

Worth watching.

Pfft.

If I've been a moron in front of the whole world, you might as well call me one; that part doesn't make a lot of difference. And if I know I haven't, well it doesn't make a lot of difference if you call me one either. I'm not five years old any more, having to chant "sticks and stones may break my bones..." to convince myself it's true, choking back the tears.

There was no "pain" on reading the reply. Only a minor frustration that there had clearly been a miscommunication about the different parts of the patch series, leading to his objections when he saw something he didn't expect. And certainly no temptation to say what you suggest. It was a technical rant. No people were harmed, and a personal reply like that would have been completely unnecessary.

I was expecting him not to like IBRS. Hell, I don't like it either. But as I said later, it still wants posting in the light of day, and a conscious decision to drop it and accept the caveats, if that's what we're going to do.

Thanks for replying here. I'm not so interested in the debate about decorum and word choice as the technical matter, but it's good to head off the branches of speculation (if you will) into them to have your insights.

> Imagine getting called a moron in front of the whole world

If he was right about what I did, I would make damn sure that I didn't do it again.

I believe he's being obnoxious because the people submitting these patches are trying to quietly pull some bullshit.

If you're trying to affect countless people and companies across the world with questionable actions, I don't care how bad you feel.

> Or maybe there is an undisclosed vulnerability (like https://skyfallattack.com/ ?)

Let's not highlight this nonsense hoax. It isn't how embargoes work and is obviously people just trying to jump on the hype train.

The function of the "shouting and cursing" is to draw attention. If Linus had used mild language, it wouldn't be on Hacker News and we wouldn't be talking about it. When Linus rants, it's always something worth ranting about; it's a powerful shaming tool to enforce good behaviour in a world where there's little other leverage.

And in the unlikely event that your theory regarding undisclosed vulnerabilities is true, this will certainly make them think twice about leaving Linus out of the loop again, no?

> "I don't understand why this is here, and I'm not merging it until I do"

This is not clear enough and could be interpreted as incompetence on the part of the speaker

It turned out that Linus had confused "IBRS" and "IBPB". That seems to me that he didn't understand it.

I'm not sure why saying "I don't understand this" would confer _incompetence_ rather than just not understanding. Understanding is easily gained with good communication. The original patch set clearly doesn't explain the point of the patches well, and everyone gets things wrong as well. There's no shame in saying "I don't understand this", it's not a final statement equivalent to "I will never be able to understand this".

Which means you are insecure about being viewed as incompetent over furthering the discussion.

If you don't understand it, say you don't understand it.

Unless you are a narcistic person that think you can never fail and anything you don't understand is always garbage.

The content in that link is hair-raising to say the least.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com