And it's disingenuous to describe the vicious attacks as 'snippy' and 'glib'.
What's really wrong is when someone consciously goes out of their way to target another person's emotions, but that has little to do with the average niceness of their writing (which is mostly set by their natural personality baseline).
So if I want to have a pleasant, welcoming, and accessible meal, I should probably cook it to her spice level instead of mine.
Its not xenophobia; its civilization. You can talk as you please to your mates. But people you don't know? Its a whole different topic. And conflating the two is dishonest.
Maybe. But I'm going to guess that those that are "invigorated" by seeing someone be told that they should be "retroactively aborted" are not demotivated by not seeing that, and that more people are demotivated by seeing that.
Given that, why is it wrong for people to try and influence their community in such a way that it minimizes people's discomfort? Shouldn't every community have the right to self-determine what conduct they're okay with?
In this case, I'm highlighting intent when I say "targeting." I shouldn't become upset when someone that always comes across as abrasive comes across as abrasive to me, but if someone goes out of their way to consciously be more abrasive than usual then that's a signal I should pay attention to. If someone who is usually very meek says something slightly harsh, then I should multiply it by a large factor to get back to their internal mental state (which is what I really care about). Likewise if it's a case where I should take what they say and divide it.
Don't downplay how he acted by using words like "snippy." There are contributors who have either left the project or actively avoid directly talking with him. There is a reason why Linus admitted he had a problem. It wasn't productive or useful.
https://plus.google.com/+LennartPoetteringTheOneAndOnly/post...
>But more importantly, I'd actually put some blame on a certain circle of folks that play a major role in kernel development, and first and foremost Linus Torvalds himself. By many he is a considered a role model, but he is quite a bad one. If he posts words like "[specific folks] ...should be retroactively aborted. Who the f*ck does idiotic things like that? How did they not die as babies, considering that they were likely too stupid to find a tit to suck on?" (google for it), than that's certainly bad. But what I find particularly appalling is the fact that he regularly defends this, and advertises this as an efficient way to run a community. (But it is not just Linus, it's a certain group of people around him who use the exact same style, some of which semi-publically even phantasize about the best ways to, ... well, kill me).
I am about to start a separate, new service and have wide leeway in how it will run. I am moving away from Linux towards a mix of BSD and Solaris/Illumos. And Systemd played a part in this technical decision.
And as I was saying to the other poster, calling something "objectively crap" isn't just most of the time wrong, it's almost always inflammatory. "Don't do it" feels like a good rule of thumb here.
"Objectively crap" is inflammatory to begin with.
Well quite literally it's doing the opposite. Social derisiveness does nothing for the community. That's just one example of many. And of course you had to nitpick about systemd instead of understanding what's being discussed. Missing The Point (TM) 2018. Linux itself isn't really a good example of sane kernel development and architecture. It's popular and it works.