There's nothing saying that he must listen to them, but it's pragmatically probably a good idea.
This is already happening. People already choose not to contribute to Linux and Fuschia isn't just some hobby project.
That's a hot take, indeed. Me, I think one should be constantly reevaluating what one believes and making sure one's actions are congruent with the life one wants to lead, but--you do you, I guess.
He should, only if he is truly care about that.
Doesn't that level of cynicism...hurt? Like, personally hurt? It's not good, dude.
Hm.
For example, someone want to just work on project according what his style and if other people feeling get hurt by this, as long as this project owner happy and fine by the situation then the logical action he should take is to just ignore the them.
Some other people who do care about other people feeling then sure, they should listen to them.
These 2 people are different so too differ on what life they want and what makes them happy.
There are no right or wrong from any this.
In 1991 as a college student. The situation has changed drastically. I'd guess his primary source of income matters greatly if it were to disappear or drastically shrink.
He clearly has added value. He has run one of the MOST successful projects EVER. Most CEOs are never this successful, to so say he is not doing something mostly right is weird to say.
He has done a lot of things right! But that doesn't mean that he needs to continue with personal attacks during patch reviews and feature discussions in a public forum.
Does it seem possible that the quality of the project could have remained the way it was without things like this being said to contributors (no matter how misguided they are):
> Of course, I'd also suggest that whoever was the genius who thought it was a good idea to read things ONE FCKING BYTE AT A TIME with system calls for each byte should be retroactively aborted. Who the fck does idiotic things like that? How did they noty die as babies, considering that they were likely too stupid to find a tit to suck on?
Yes, reading anything one byte at a time is generally a bad idea. That patch should not be accepted. But... saying things like that probably isn't necessary to get the point across. People have been telling him that for a long time, and he's finally sat back, reflected on it, and decided to change.
I don't think anyone's suggesting that the project hasn't been wildly successful, nor that it hasn't generally been a great project to contribute to. But over the years there's been some pretty wild things said to nominally-valued contributors, and some of them have left over it.
"That hurts me and you should stop" need not be "logical" to be deserving of respect.
"You claiming women should be treated equally to men hurts me, you should stop."
Do you care or respect this view? What if you consider the fact that there are hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people that would completely genuinely state and agree with the above? Does that somehow make it a more legitimate claim? Obviously not. This is precisely why logic is what matters. Appeals to emotion can be used to argue for great or awful things using the exact same language which ultimately makes the entire notion completely pointless. This is likely the reason the word pathetic has the etymology that it does. At the point one is appealing to emotion, they've long since lost the thread.
I'd also add here that behind nearly all great travesties in history there was some charismatic leader who likely thought he was in the right, swaying people largely through appeals to emotion to his cause. And this is because emotion sidesteps the necessity of actually having to show that e.g. the people you are demonizing are actually bad.
Not empowering shitheads is more valuable to me than Emerson's foolish consistency.
When the situation on the ground changes--and it hasn't yet, don't @ me--I will reevaluate my position, because my brain works and I do not feel tethered to immutable positions (on topics like this, at least).
The only thing I'm critiquing is how you came to your view. It's a rationale that, as illustrated, leads to views you'd obviously never endorse. So should the views of masses of people mean something? Of course my opinion on this is clear, but I think if you want to argue that it does surely you must be able to find some form of logic or evidence to support the view. Alternatively, you might even focus on how Linus' behavior is likely harmful to himself. I think it's extremely likely that he changed his views not because he changed his actual view, but because he got tired of years of harassment because of his behavior. But of course such harassment is to be fully expected when you act like a dick. Catch more flies with honey than vinegar, and all that. I don't really agree with these notions, but they are at least reasonable and mostly logical.
Why does that have you, to use a Linus-ism, so hot under the T-shirt?
Its odd, that people keep saying this. He is the leader of one of the largest most successful projects mankind has seen. He has the most diverse portfolio from around the world. But yet, some how what he has done has not worked, and is not working...
And the rest of your post blows my mind--the idea that something can work and yet be imperfect, can work and yet can be better, is so foreign to you?
Me, I'm always trying to improve. Why shouldn't he?
I never said it was perfect, I just commented on what he was doing was worked well considering the goals of the project.
> can work and yet can be better, is so foreign to you?
Absolutely not, I just think the methods being used to achieve the "better" in question is actively making it worse.
Which I find kind of interesting, you know? He might just actually know what's going on in his own head.
They did. Enough people said "hey if you keep behaving this way we will no longer want to interact with you or the things you work with" that Linus stopped acting that way.
It went no further than that.
If you then give out keys to dozens/hundreds/thousands of other people to come over whenever they want and tell them "Make yourselves at home", you can't be surprised when they start calling you out for shitting in plastic bags in the living room and leaving them there for guests to find.
You can try to kick them out, but you'll find it difficult at this point, and you'll lose a lot of your friends in the process.
Choices have to be made: do you stick to your guns, or do you choose to reevaluate how you're living your life?
regarding the situation at hand, linus is effectively a project lead for linux. though I understand the need to create a certain persona or quality-barrier for maintaining quality of linux, I feel his personality & the name calling attitude is actually hurting the kernel community and hindering more active participation.
If I invited you over to help me work on a car in my garage do I now not own my car?
Linux is much more than just the code. And the fact that it simply was not forked to remove Linus shows you this. It is his project, he is the gate keeper.
This is inconsistent. Even if you believe OS projects are like “homes” and bullies have the right to treat people however they like in their homes... By the same logic everyone, typing on keyboards in their own homes, has the right to criticize bullies and express their opinions. By proclaiming “it should go no further” that keeping quiet you are implicitly placing restrictions on what they can do in their homes. Heck, they can even do it in your home if they want, until you uninvite them.
Think of it more like a company instead of a house. The founder doesn't have free reign to do whatever he wants to his employees. Everyone deserves to be treated respectfully, regardless of the situation.
People are saying that "we will not work with you unless you stop being an asshole". It's just happening at the organizational level.
Linus is more than free to say whatever he likes, and people are also free to tell him to buzz off. That's how the rest of the world works.