Now, if the people approving patches are just normal employees who can get fired if a kernel sponsor complains enough, it’s going to be much harder for them to successfully deflect all the bullshit without ever caving in.
Now, if the people approving patches are just normal employees who can get fired if a kernel sponsor complains enough, it’s going to be much harder for them to successfully deflect all the bullshit without ever caving in.
There has been a longstanding problem of people submitting low-quality patches to maintainers - not to Linus personally - and that problem predated Linus stepping back for one release.
Linus was not ousted and continues to have nearly absolute control; he has, for decades, chosen to exercise that control by delegating ownership of parts of the code to other people. Those people receive and review patches and incorporate them into their repos, which Linus pulls in bulk. (This is the origin of the term "pull request," which predates GitHub's use of it.) He quickly reviews those patches to make sure there's nothing weird, but he generally trusts that his "lieutenants" are making good decisions.
That means that the time being wasted here is the time of individual maintainers, who are reviewing the patch, making a full judgment on it, and pulling it into their tree. Linus sees all such cleanups once per cycle and looks at them fairly quickly.
Almost all of those maintainers have been "normal employees" of various companies for many, many years. Again, take a look at the MAINTAINERS file.
Linux health happened *despite* Linus' manners, not because of them.
For one, I think it might be possible Linus's no-nonsense attitude is for the better of the organization as people who can't work with it are leaving causing Linux developers, on average, to be more no-nonsense and also able to coexist better with other no-nonsense people.
But, it is my conjecture only. We would never know how Linux would fare if Linus was another guy.
Wasn't the other person doing exactly the same, just on the "pro-asshole" side of the argument?
These are logically not the same structure of argument. I'm not making any character judgements about people involved in this discussion, or on the LKML either for that matter.
I'd agree with this for 99% of the time. There's a small 1% of the time though...where sometimes people really need to be told to fuck off.
On GPLv3 lots of calls for Linus to stop supporting GPLv2
"How do we get you to stop..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU
And the list goes on and on. That said, his decisions seem to have worked out amazingly well. At some point I can imagine getting tired at having to repeatedly defend your views.
As someone who regularly deals with bugs and inconsistencies in Linux, I wouldn't say so. For me personally, I just want to be able to fix the issues, and would rather not spend the time bickering with someone who has some kind of personal vendetta about something that I don't know about. I try hard not to dump my baggage on other open source maintainers, I hope others can do the same.
I have trouble understanding why it bothers people so much that Linus is rude sometimes. You don't have to interact with him if you don't want. You can even contribute to the kernel without interacting with him. Whatever he's been doing has been working for going on 3 decades now, I don't see a burning need to change it because it bothers some outsiders.
There's this weird sense of entitlement. People want to elbow their way into this long-running and successful project and start telling everybody how they ought to behave. They think they have the right to contribute on their own terms without bothering to understand the project culture, and think it's everybody else's responsibility to make things easy for them and behave in a way they approve of.
If you really think the LKML is too toxic and hostile, to the detriment of the project, then feel free to fork it and start up a parallel project without the problems you see. Surely your friendly corporate-style culture will attract more contributors and soon you'll have the more successful kernel, right?
Personally, I like having somebody in charge of the core of the OS who's so concerned with correctness and hygiene that he gets upset when they're violated.
>feel free to fork it and start up a parallel project without the problems you see
Most Linux distros are basically already doing this. They all have their own patchsets. It's well beyond correctness and hygiene at this point, if you actually look at the changes that are being disputed, it already falls a lot more in the "cultural differences" category.
The cultural differences that cause distro forks are debates over free-vs-libre, what belongs in the kernel vs userspace, and standardization issues, not (afaik) "we won't submit this to the upstream kernel because we don't approve of the way they talk to each other there". And I think it's very important for the core kernel devs to hold the line on those issues.
Can people actually point to instances where he was rude?
Linus disagrees with you, so strongly that he invested a great amount of his time, reputation, and political capital in changing his behavior and that of his organization.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18000698
I think I'll trust Linus on that. Linux seems pretty successful.
My question remains: What is the basis of that? Do you work with him? Read his biography at least (assuming there is one)?