His style of being direct, having a high quality threshold and calling out bullshit immediately and bluntly is why the Linux kernel went from a university project to powering everything from lightbulbs to super computers. I think it kind of ridiculous that this demonstrably effective style got framed as “toxic” just because he hurt a few people’s fee-fees.
You can be direct and call out bullshit without swearing and name calling. While the content of this sounds reasonable, the tone definitely isn’t. If someone talked to me like that I’d tell them to fuck right off.
Sure you can. But the evidence i see in my immediate vicinity is that informations go in through one ear and straight out through the other without holding on to anything if presented in in a none swearing or name calling manner. It hurts but it works.
Yes you could but he didn’t and clearly his style was self evidently effective. And I’d add that if you’ve ever read the LKML archives, that these rants were rare and usually preceded by long chains of discussion before it reached that point.
Yes you could but he didn’t and clearly his style was self evidently effective.
Depends on how you define “effective”. Because by his own admission, it gets shit done, but also alienates people in the project and turns off others from joining it.
So yeah, you’ll get the update pushed, and it’ll work, but down the line you find yourself struggling to keep up without the help of people that don’t want to work with you.
Linus’ mistake is a classic one: really self-sufficient tech person doing fantastic work with a team but not appreciating that there’s a whole social layer to it that is every bit as important as the standards and procedures at keeping everything working.
I define effective by the fact it was self evidently effective. No need to split hairs or dissemble here. Linux is objectively, indisputably the most important piece of code in the world. Everything else, such as a the context free boo hoo about some times when he has had a go at people is just noise.
Or he’s just playing the game within the current “social layers” that have attached to or are inherit to the project to placate those who require placating. Not like pubic figures haven’t had to blow sunshine up asses to shut the the “whiners” up before. And if so, maybe those lasting changes are trivial because it was never a major habit to begin with and rare. Its was just an approach to get the result. But you’ve to show the public you care (even if you don’t) and talk about how you worked real hard and put in the work. (Even if the work was trivial)
Where’s the logic in looking at something successful and picking a singular thing to be responsible? What seems more likely is you are looking for an idea you are attached to that exists adjacent to something successful. It’s like a Mormon looking for successful Mormon CEOs to then claim the company’s success is due to the Mormon work ethic. It’s like how in Whiplash the Charlie Parker story is venerated and seen as explanatory by the characters.
The logic is simple. This is s his style and it demonstrably worked. I’m sure you could point to someone else’s style that also works in another context but that’s irrelevant.
But did it work because of the style or in spite of it? No reason to believe it wouldn’t be even more successful if he had been less abrasive like he is now.
“Especially because it’s become even more successful after he’s mellowed out?”
You state that as if its also “obvious”. How is this a fact? How is it obvious? Is it more successful because of his mellowing or irrespective of it? On its face, seems to me we cant nod our head in agreement to your sudden assertion any more than arc’s assertion that Linus’ initial style worked.
You seem to want arc to provide some sort of metric or proof to back up his assertion. Well, where is yours? Where’s your metric/data?
My point is exactly that. It’s not obvious, and as such you can’t attribute the success of Linux to his behaviour. Like the OP said, there’s no logic in looking at something successful and picking a singular thing to be responsible.
Already understood your point. Where in my post is it clear that l didn’t? Its hinted and referenced that I understood as I use variations of your own phrases and challenge you using the same point on, Specifically, this quote:
“Especially because it’s become even more successful after he’s mellowed out?”
What exactly is the utility of the above quote of yours then? Cause its structured as something you assert as a fact that’s used to bolster your initial point to arc.
The bolster being something like:
If its so obvious that Linus’ original style was so “demonstrably effective” as to be the reason for the massive success of Linux then how can you (arc) explain the fact that it has especially become even more successful after he’s mellowed out?
but like, has it? Has it become even more successful after he’s mellowed out? Your bolster kinda hinges on that fact to be true. Cause if we were to somehow find your assertion to be untrue and the project to be worse off by X degree after he mellowed out then that could more bolster arc’s assertions.
Way to infantalize the people calling him out while excusing his childish tantrums.
You’re infantilizing Linus’ expression of anger, just the same as the person you’re replying to is infantilizing people who’re upset by it.
Either they’re both bad, or they’re both acceptable - or you’re effectively saying that infantilization is fine, but only towards people whose behaviour you disapprove of.
One behavior is inherently childish. One is not.
One is objectively the attitude of an infant and thus does not require the act of infantalization in order to be framed as such. This is not the double-standard gotcha that you think it is.
To rephrase, one more time:
The act of calling out childish behaviour is not childish.
One behavior is inherently childish. One is not.
One is objectively the attitude of an infant and thus does not require the act of infantalization in order to be framed as such.
No, it isn’t, and this is a subjective opinion on your part. Not everyone agrees with you, so it’s not objective. Even what exactly is ‘childish’ behaviour is subjective, and arguably culturally dependent.
His behaviour is pretty much by definition, that of an adult. An adult with poor impulse control, poor anger management skills, sure. But childish? That’s a value judgement which contains no insight likely to reach anyone. It adds nothing to the conversation.
Use less reductionist words to explain why it’s bad.
Or to rephrase: Linus’ reply isn’t bad because it is childish. All calling it childish, or infantile, communicates is your own judgement.
Also; describing your judgement as ‘calling out’ - particularly when this is behaviour he has since admitted was poor, and has taken time out to address - just reads like you’re using the language of social justice to justify judgemental language.
I think too many people get upset about swearing. It brings a strong emphasis, it’s not disrespect imo. Knowing how Linus is, I’d take that response in stride. I appreciate his direct approach especially to the brazen arrogance of someone too full of themselves to see themselves as wrong. It wouldn’t be a great way to start a conversation, but as an ender it’s terribly effective. He called a fucking idiot a fucking idiot. That shouldn’t be toxic. Not everything that hurts someone’s tender feels is toxic. The intent should be taken into consideration.
I agree on the first part. However this is from 2012 and in the meantime Linus himself realized and admitted that he was not proud of behaving like that and took real measures and seeked help in order to improve himself.
It’s easier to label other people toxic rather than finding flaws in themselves. More people will agree with someone being toxic, because deflection as a tactic got so ingrained in people that they don’t know better.
Exactly. It might not be good to be on the receiving end, but the chain of discussion that went before these rants should have given people the clue they needed to stop while they were ahead.
His style of being direct, having a high quality threshold and calling out bullshit immediately and bluntly is why the Linux kernel went from a university project to powering everything from lightbulbs to super computers. I think it kind of ridiculous that this demonstrably effective style got framed as “toxic” just because he hurt a few people’s fee-fees.
You can be direct and call out bullshit without swearing and name calling. While the content of this sounds reasonable, the tone definitely isn’t. If someone talked to me like that I’d tell them to fuck right off.
Sure you can. But the evidence i see in my immediate vicinity is that informations go in through one ear and straight out through the other without holding on to anything if presented in in a none swearing or name calling manner. It hurts but it works.
Yes you could but he didn’t and clearly his style was self evidently effective. And I’d add that if you’ve ever read the LKML archives, that these rants were rare and usually preceded by long chains of discussion before it reached that point.
Depends on how you define “effective”. Because by his own admission, it gets shit done, but also alienates people in the project and turns off others from joining it.
So yeah, you’ll get the update pushed, and it’ll work, but down the line you find yourself struggling to keep up without the help of people that don’t want to work with you.
Linus’ mistake is a classic one: really self-sufficient tech person doing fantastic work with a team but not appreciating that there’s a whole social layer to it that is every bit as important as the standards and procedures at keeping everything working.
I define effective by the fact it was self evidently effective. No need to split hairs or dissemble here. Linux is objectively, indisputably the most important piece of code in the world. Everything else, such as a the context free boo hoo about some times when he has had a go at people is just noise.
Seems like the man himself disagrees with you, since he saw it as a big enough problem to get professional help and make long lasting changes. 🤷♂️
Or he’s just playing the game within the current “social layers” that have attached to or are inherit to the project to placate those who require placating. Not like pubic figures haven’t had to blow sunshine up asses to shut the the “whiners” up before. And if so, maybe those lasting changes are trivial because it was never a major habit to begin with and rare. Its was just an approach to get the result. But you’ve to show the public you care (even if you don’t) and talk about how you worked real hard and put in the work. (Even if the work was trivial)
Oh noes he used bad wordsies? My fee-fees!
Where’s the logic in looking at something successful and picking a singular thing to be responsible? What seems more likely is you are looking for an idea you are attached to that exists adjacent to something successful. It’s like a Mormon looking for successful Mormon CEOs to then claim the company’s success is due to the Mormon work ethic. It’s like how in Whiplash the Charlie Parker story is venerated and seen as explanatory by the characters.
The logic is simple. This is s his style and it demonstrably worked. I’m sure you could point to someone else’s style that also works in another context but that’s irrelevant.
But did it work because of the style or in spite of it? No reason to believe it wouldn’t be even more successful if he had been less abrasive like he is now.
Because of it, quite obviously.
How is that obvious? Especially because it’s become even more successful after he’s mellowed out?
“Especially because it’s become even more successful after he’s mellowed out?”
You state that as if its also “obvious”. How is this a fact? How is it obvious? Is it more successful because of his mellowing or irrespective of it? On its face, seems to me we cant nod our head in agreement to your sudden assertion any more than arc’s assertion that Linus’ initial style worked.
You seem to want arc to provide some sort of metric or proof to back up his assertion. Well, where is yours? Where’s your metric/data?
My point is exactly that. It’s not obvious, and as such you can’t attribute the success of Linux to his behaviour. Like the OP said, there’s no logic in looking at something successful and picking a singular thing to be responsible.
Already understood your point. Where in my post is it clear that l didn’t? Its hinted and referenced that I understood as I use variations of your own phrases and challenge you using the same point on, Specifically, this quote:
“Especially because it’s become even more successful after he’s mellowed out?”
What exactly is the utility of the above quote of yours then? Cause its structured as something you assert as a fact that’s used to bolster your initial point to arc.
The bolster being something like:
If its so obvious that Linus’ original style was so “demonstrably effective” as to be the reason for the massive success of Linux then how can you (arc) explain the fact that it has especially become even more successful after he’s mellowed out?
but like, has it? Has it become even more successful after he’s mellowed out? Your bolster kinda hinges on that fact to be true. Cause if we were to somehow find your assertion to be untrue and the project to be worse off by X degree after he mellowed out then that could more bolster arc’s assertions.
Way to infantalize the people calling him out while excusing his childish tantrums.
There is a difference between a rant and a tantrum. If you read the post, you could see very clearly he makes a point very forcefully.
Okay. How about: don’t lash out at people when you’re mad.
Come on dude. Either there’s a standard here or there isn’t.
Uh yeah. Childish behavior is childish. Holding people to a higher standard is not.
You’re infantilizing Linus’ expression of anger, just the same as the person you’re replying to is infantilizing people who’re upset by it.
Either they’re both bad, or they’re both acceptable - or you’re effectively saying that infantilization is fine, but only towards people whose behaviour you disapprove of.
One behavior is inherently childish. One is not.
One is objectively the attitude of an infant and thus does not require the act of infantalization in order to be framed as such. This is not the double-standard gotcha that you think it is.
To rephrase, one more time:
The act of calling out childish behaviour is not childish.
No, it isn’t, and this is a subjective opinion on your part. Not everyone agrees with you, so it’s not objective. Even what exactly is ‘childish’ behaviour is subjective, and arguably culturally dependent.
His behaviour is pretty much by definition, that of an adult. An adult with poor impulse control, poor anger management skills, sure. But childish? That’s a value judgement which contains no insight likely to reach anyone. It adds nothing to the conversation.
Use less reductionist words to explain why it’s bad.
Or to rephrase: Linus’ reply isn’t bad because it is childish. All calling it childish, or infantile, communicates is your own judgement.
Also; describing your judgement as ‘calling out’ - particularly when this is behaviour he has since admitted was poor, and has taken time out to address - just reads like you’re using the language of social justice to justify judgemental language.
Hell yeah. But it’s not considered good anymore, everyone has to be very nice and whatnot. Too bad imo but I guess less hurt feelings.
I think too many people get upset about swearing. It brings a strong emphasis, it’s not disrespect imo. Knowing how Linus is, I’d take that response in stride. I appreciate his direct approach especially to the brazen arrogance of someone too full of themselves to see themselves as wrong. It wouldn’t be a great way to start a conversation, but as an ender it’s terribly effective. He called a fucking idiot a fucking idiot. That shouldn’t be toxic. Not everything that hurts someone’s tender feels is toxic. The intent should be taken into consideration.
I agree on the first part. However this is from 2012 and in the meantime Linus himself realized and admitted that he was not proud of behaving like that and took real measures and seeked help in order to improve himself.
I totally agree. I have mad respect for Linus for the work he’s done and the immense amount of retardation he’s had to sift and fight his way through.
I have very little respect for the people critiquing his behavior while contributing nothing of value themselves.
It’s easier to label other people toxic rather than finding flaws in themselves. More people will agree with someone being toxic, because deflection as a tactic got so ingrained in people that they don’t know better.
Torvalds got professional help for that. Even he acknowledged that it was a problem.
Exactly. It might not be good to be on the receiving end, but the chain of discussion that went before these rants should have given people the clue they needed to stop while they were ahead.