It's disgusting that this post has not been removed, has a 96% postive vote ratio, has over 1K upvotes and is sitting at the top of All after almost a day.
This isn't a Linux meme. It's a celebration of abuse, abusive behaviour and abusive people.
All the people ITT condoning or making even the slightest accommodations for this behaviour ought to be ashamed and need to take a good, long look in a mirror.
What are the moderators of this community thinking? Are you reading this stuff? Do some of you agree with any of it?
Of all the things to celebrate about Linus and Linux this is not one of them.
There is no value in leaving this post up. There is nothing to be learned or gained by revealing just how gross some supposed Linux supporters may be.
Does anyone ITT seriously think this is how Linus or Linux developers want to be remembered and celebrated for their dedication and decades of toil?
Do you think anyone that's been on the receiving end of this kind of abuse on the job or in the home wants to jump onto Lemmy today to see this celebration of abusive and awful behaviour.
There are no excuses to be made. It doesn't matter that this happened many years ago and that Linus has managed to overcome behaving like this. The post itself is now the issue.
The many comments that have made even the slightest excuse for this kind of behaviour are awful and damaging to the reputations of Linus, Linux and the Linux community.
While Linus went overboard (as he has a history of doing, and as has also caused negativity to the community), this post is still very well liked because it appears to be a strong example of someone calling out the BS that a lot of developers like to throw around. No one's going to join in a circle celebrating Linus picking on some first time contributor who didn't know any better, but that's how it sounds like you're interpreting the post.
To add some context, there's a toxic superiority complex that many developers have where they jump to blame others for issues that actually relate to their code. You can see this anywhere from developers who immediately blame users without investigating to software developers within companies who are quick to pass off issues as not their team's problem.
So, in this example Linus is actually calling one of these developers out, which is why the post is very well-received.
Ugh, having been on the receiving end, this type of belittlement is the worst, and breeds resentment, factionalism, and a host of other toxic elements in the workplace.
Irrespective of the validity of his critique, prima donna developers are the worst and I would start looking for jobs elsewhere because programming is already stressful enough, don't want to start worrying about the people.
Honestly, I maybe get why some people are too sensitive to work in such conditions, but from my professional experience, I’d much rather prefer getting angry mail explaining why my actions are stupid, than everyone being nice to one another but the codebase is utter garbage and everything falls apart, which happens a lot in private companies.
I would tell you that you haven't worked with enough people. I don't disagree but occasionally you find people that need a really really good reminder that they not only suck but you've tried to be nice multiple times and it didn't penetrate.
Or nice in person, then all the toxic bakstabbing behind the scenes.
This reads like the Sh*t My Dad says book. The author said it seemed harsh to some people, but the bonus was there was never any passive agressiveness, and you always knew exactly where you stood.
you seem to have created a false dichotomy where it's impossible to fix bad code without being abusive. would you like me to call you "dumb motherfucker" or is this explanation enough?
I think you've missed what the sin was, as well as the context of the players.
The sin was not the bad code. Let me say it one more time for clarity: the issue was not the code
The issue was that, when presented with the defect (inevitable outcome of any software project: not intrinsically sinful) Mauro started blaming other people on a public mailing list
Mauro, being a maintainer, was in a position of authority. Like a police officer, their bad behaviour reflected poorly on the organization*as a whole.
If a cop was abusing their power (publicly or not), I expect the chief of police to come down on that abuser; to make clear that this abuse is absolutely unacceptable, not only within the accute instance, but within the greater context of the expectation of the behaviour of the whole organization.
Mauro chose the context of his abusive behaviour as the public mailing list.
Him getting slapped down in that same forum is the direct result of his own choices.
In the same way that I would be upset with the chief of police not publicly and harshy denouncing an abusive police officer, so would I be upset with the absence of such a response in this situation
I didn't miss the sin. The sin isn't relevant to me. You don't treat people like that. Whatever you hope to accomplish, you can accomplish without treating people like that. If someone else is being abusive, that's not license for you to be abusive in response. If a cop was abusing their power would you expect the chief of police to publicly berate and insult him, or would you expect the standards to be enforced without resorting to that?
When you abuse someone for being abusive you don't make it clear that abuse is unacceptable. In fact, you do the opposite. You establish that abuse is a part of your culture. If I was considering contributing to the kernel and saw this exchange, I'd walk away. I don't need that shit, not from Mauro, not from Linus, not from the Lord hisownself. It damages the organization long-term.
Not going to touch the general toxicity as it's something Linus has already apologized and worked through with professional help, but I love the attitude when it comes to responsibility.
Far too often it's easier to blame someone else for error.
"No this is our problem, and I'm ashamed you're trying to blame someone else for it" is respectable take
Everyone gets angry, but this is not a constructive way to communicate what someone else needs to do. You can express all of this without belittling and swearing at someone. Being angry is fine, taking it out on other people is rude and unnecessary.
He basically has one rule and one rule only... we don't break user space... IMO, if you break that one rule, I believe he has the right to be angry. It's not constructive, but I wouldn't hold it against him.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Doesn't make it right. Michael Jackson's dad abused his kids and they became world famous artists, doesn't mean abusing your kids is acceptable or should be seen as such.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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'd give as good as I got and we'd be fine. Not everyone is a spineless crybaby who melts down at the first hint of disapproval. Are you all little children?
Edit: Stupid question, apparently. Good thing it was rhetorical.
If someone whom I respected shat a bit in email about my work product, I'd be sad for a bit. Then I'd read it again and understand it's my work product and I am not my work. I can make mistakes and I can fix them, and fixing mistakes is how we get awesome.
I have received negative feedback. And I did feel just a little butthurt about it. But it was in NJ and I was new, and didn't see from the first read that Buddy was expressing frank and honest concerns about my work product and not me. I'm embarrassed to say how long it took me to clue in, but I did. And we worked through my mistakes and I was the better for it. And I learned.
And when he said my work didn't suck as much, I knew I was improving, because I could trust him.
I get what you mean, but there are ways to say you fucked up, without calling you expletives. Some days, you get angry and scream at someone, but it doesn't really make it feel amazing for the party being screamed at.
I didn't mean it was mean from him to give him feedback or correct him, but the way he said it was a bit overblown.
So I recently had a conversation with some who though Linus Torvalds (kernel) and Linus Sebastian (Linus Tech Tips) was the same person.
That was a pretty funny and confusing conversation.
Yeah, those mailing lists used to have some quite funny stuff; my favorite so far is smth along the lines of "whoever thought this was a good idea should be retroactively aborted".
But, on the other hand, damn it's toxic. Should've really sucked to work on the kernel back then.
Someone else pointed out that he actually apologized for being toxic sometimes and took some time off as a kernel maintainer because of that. Nice to see.
He did hurt the mission. Plenty of kernel maintainers have left, and those were people who had been with the project for years. Losing experienced people to toxicity 1000% harms both the project and the product.
If there's a surplus of talent (sounds like Mauro was dead weight) then at most he was just rude on Mauro's way out the door.
I'm not saying it's cool to be rude, but if it's Linus' review then you get what you get. To be butthurt about someone being rude to you should motivate you to learn your code interactions better. (In this case error handling)
You are just going to die on this hill, aren't you? Even Linus recognized that his attitude was toxic, eventually, and that it was having a negative impact on the kernel development community. Yes, people left. Talented people decided it wasn't worth the abuse.
You're making judgements on people's utility and ability based on the volatile reactions of man who admits to having issues. That creates toxic environments where people are not encouraged to do better, but any amount of change is due to fear of repercussions. This does not promote growth or new ideas that would genuinely improve something, but rather a fear of failure if they attempt something new. This also isn't useful programming criticism because the actual useful criticism is buried in an emotional slurry that's going to make something less receptive to the useful information.
You are a useless peace of dead weight in this community. Your comments suck and you have no idea how people work and how to professionally communicate. I hope you never have a job, let alone one in a management role. You should leave and never come back. Get aborted retroactively! You make the world a worse place by your mere existance!
How do you feel about that? Are you going to change your behavior because of these "stern words"? Or are you going to think "What an idiot" and ignore everything I said?
And we both are just anonymous randos on the internet and while this comment is public, not a lot of people are going to read it and it will have zero impact to either of our lives.
Now imagine I was your boss, both of us are publically known people and I post this on the company social media account together with your full name.
And people still dig this up 10 years later to laugh at it.
No, was the product reduced or damaged, not did people leave. No one cares about individuals, if they can be replaced without blocking the progress of the project.
Those articles are very whiney. They chose to work on that project, with a singular leader. It's his house, his rules, his standards.
You seem eager to pose this “if the product was undamaged” as if you can quantify what might have happened differently, but then in a comment below you ask someone else to prove that maintainers left.
It might shock you to learn that products are developed by people. Actual people stay or leave and work wildly differently based on things like respect, expectations, and being in a hostile environment.
Want proof of that? Go work on an actual project with a team sometime.
edit - And this isn’t even accounting for the ways toxic communication impedes wider adoption of a product
People who could be easily replaced. It's a non issue.
I do work on software teams, and don't conduct myself like Linus, because I'm not Linus. That pattern of communication isn't available to me, an average engineer.
But if someone spoke to me that way (and they have) I took it as a clear signal I need to level up and act right. Not an invitation to feel bad about myself.
Linux has clearly not missed out on wide adoption in any way.
I feel it's equally important to point ot that Torvalds recognized his toxic behavior, apologized for it, and took steps to rectify it.
In an email to the Linux Kernel Mailing List, which also addresses the kernel update of Linux 4.19-rc4, Torvalds writes: "I need to change some of my behavior, and I want to apologize to the people that my personal behavior hurt and possibly drove away from kernel development entirely."
"I am going to take time off and get some assistance on how to understand people's emotions and respond appropriately."
So two wrongs make a right? Or could this have been a civil private email instead? And if civil private conversations aren't working, then it's time to part ways.
Acceptable, yes. But a good manager knows not to shine a spotlight on the mistakes of the team. There's nothing to gain keeping it public that you wouldn't also gain by keeping it private. But your team's morale is kept high if you sing their praises instead of their shortcomings.
