> I'd certainly question trusting Torvalds in any high stakes situation that required tact under pressure...
Huh? When are kernel developers in high stakes situations that require tact? He doesn't host peace talks for a living. He manages Linux. He needs to be trusted for high stakes situations requiring technical clarity and technical decision making. And between our phones, our internet services and our banking infrastructure, basically everybody in modern society depends on the linux kernel working correctly.
> To my mind verbal abuse doesn't mean they're speaking their mind, it means they've lost control.
What? I just don't see it that way at all. If he'd lost control the criticism would be less technically grounded, and he wouldn't have merged the patch anyway. To me, Torvald's temper clearly expresses the value of "make the kernel good, don't make it be bad". Blowing up like this is an expensive social signal - it shows that to him the kernel being good is so important that he's willing to risk losing face and support to do so. I agree with other commenters that there are probably better ways he could get his point across; but how he expresses himself is completely authentic and aligned with his value of technical competence.
And that buys a lot of trust in my eyes.
And I don't think its just me. Trump does the same thing, and I suspect the "I can trust him because he gets angry" vibe helped him get elected. (For better or worse.)