One can sternly address serious mistakes by a subordinate without being outright mean about it. Doing so calmly and seriously is usually more effective anyway.
Yeah, maybe left kernal development (like Linus indicated he may have done to various people), maybe that person was traumatized. But alas, there’s no other way to let a human being know they made a mistake without making exaggerated personal attacks.
They are literally interacting with the dudes life work, and apparently shitting on core rules. No surprise he got heated. It’s not just a job to that dude, it’s like he slapped his mother
All attacks were related.to the professional output (the code, and the ability to code)
Nah my man. No excuse to act like an ass like that; life’s work or not. That’s simply a sign of poor emotional maturity, and is (plain and simple) abusive behavior. People make mistakes, regardless of the severity of the mistake. Let’s put it another way: would you be okay with someone talking to a child that way? If not, why is it okay to do so to an adult? Just because we’re older, doesn’t mean we deserve it.
Very good point. Berating someone for making a mistake does not help either party. Even more so, when the one screaming doesn’t actually mention what went wrong, so you can correct it next time
Yeah, it’s kind of invigorating to see somebody speak so plainly. No “There’s a couple issues we should maybe discuss”, no “Let’s loop back on that sometime”, no “Hmm, is that really the best approach? Do you have any documentation?” Just a straightforward “Dude, this is shit! Here’s some reasons why!”"
Having worked for a decade in tech, I would love it of people were this direct.
Well that’s pretty hilariously ironic. I’m nothing like this, I wish I were more comfortable being direct. But meanwhile, you heap abuse on me and threaten to beat me up because I said “boy, it’s nice to see someone speaking directly”. You’re much worse than Torvalds, and I completely agree it would be a terrible idea for us to ever work together. Or for you to work with anyone else, for that matter.
Having worked in tech for two and a half decades, and in places that were this direct - no thanks. There’s a fine line between being clear and direct, and being toxic - what Torvalds did here was toxic, and in many workplaces of today would be classed as bullying. Being subjected to this ‘directness’ for any given amount of time will do a number on most people’s personality and self-esteem. People don’t improve themselves if all you do is shit on them.
Agreed. I think it’s amusing to observe. Being around it yourself is quite difficult. Being the target of it sucks and having your peer go off the deep end and finding a way to reel them in sucks too.
Fair. I’ve worked in tech for just over a decade now, and I’ve only been in the polar opposite environment, and found it sorta suffocating. Everybody knows this guy is pumping out crap, and every bug in the system comes from his part of the code, but well…if anybody says it, or even hints it, they’re being unnecessarily confrontational, and nobody ever gives anything but positive feedback in peer reviews.
I feel, from my limited experience, like the 90s might have been peak machismo rock star hacker work culture, and the pendulum has now swung to the very far side.
It’s perfectly possible to say “this is unacceptable, we never break userspace. Mauro, your change is obviously what is breaking userspace because …” without adding “SHUT THE FUCK UP” or “[all of this is] TOTAL CRAP”, i.e. being direct without being derogatory.
I mean, that’s fair, and as was pointed out elsewhere Linus has sought help for his temper.
On the other hand, for all the talk of how “unprofessional” it was for him to behave this way, he did shepherd an OS kernel from a hobby project to the most popular OS on the planet (with the possible exception of Minix, apparently…)
I agree that polite directness might be better, bu IMHO the more common polite indirectness and avoidance of any hint of conflict is clearly worse.
I read a lot of frustration in that post. I don’t know if that frustration was warranted, but I’ve been in (non-tech) leadership where you almost just have to scream like this to get the point across.
“This is incorrect. Here’s why. 1. 2. 3.” no need to be disrespectful, no need to make it even call it a fuck up. either the individual has the maturity to grow or …not. but then… I certainly understand the frustration. There’s just some people… that definitely struck a nerve of the ‘you don’t get it, do you?’ variety. like the guy who told me (working contract security), that it was illegal for us to make them go outside in winter, because below-freezing is too dangerous. (yeah. We, uh, provided them with some fairly good parkas, and had hats and gloves available. with ‘if you need more’ accommodation already mentioned.)(Oh, and he was only needing to be outside for about ten, or so minutes.)
It’s often clear to see that Linus hasn’t experienced the “and find out” part of what happens when you fuck around. I know that many of us techies aren’t the most confrontational types, but I’m surprised that no one has hit him yet.
I like the discussion this has generated around toxicity and professionalism, but I’m still very amused by the fact that he censored himself in the last line after not doing so for the rest of the message.
Neither of them are window managers, they are windowing systems. A window manager is the part that actually lets you move around windows and draws the borders and stuff, like kwin, mutter, xfwm, i3, etc
Edit: for those who don’t want to use YouTube anymore. If a is the long side and b is the short side of a rectangle. Halving the rectangle will make the long side b and the short side 1/2 a. If the ratio is preserved when halving, we get:
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.
I was curious as I couldn’t help but laugh, but damn dude. That is rough. Hilarious looking at it now, but I feel bad for whomever was at the receiving end.
Of course, I’d also suggest that whoever was the genius who thought it was a good idea to read things ONE FUCKING BYTE AT A TIME with system calls for each byte should be retroactively aborted. Who the fuck 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?
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.
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.
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.
In almost instances of Linus going off on one in public it is because maintainers weren’t doing their jobs (to act as quality gatekeepers), or particular developers thinking they could steam roll road changes through if they kept submitting them, or not listening to what Linus was saying. I remember Linus used to ream out Hans Reiser a lot (the guy who was subsequently imprisoned for murdering his wife) because he constantly tried to get ReiserFS into the kernel despite serious issues Linus had with it.
So generally when you see a rant, there is a history behind it and the rant itself is directed with a point. I also think it’s self evident that the kernel has benefited from this “benevolent dictator” model. I’m sure some people have gotten all precious over their feelings being hurt. The rest raised their game and the result has been a code quality standard you’ll probably never see anywhere else.
I can understand Linus getting frustrated at people who consistently push him (i e. Lennart) and I agree that there’s a reason he’s stayed at the helm of kernel maintenance and development all this time; however, that doesn’t denigrate that this is an unacceptable way to treat someone which Linus himself acknowledges! If this were about ReiserFS going into the kernel, I would understand that. But a poorly made commit should not be met with this vitriol. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be consequences for poor work, but this is not it.
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.
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’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.
You’re making a false equivalency where stern is the same as toxic. There are more professional and clear ways to communicate the issues with code quality. No one is disagreeing that those need to be communicated. The Issue is how.
And because you seem to take stock in what Torvalds says, then consider that if he himself admitted these were harmful and inefficient methods of communication then they probably were. If it was leading to fantastic results in the kernel i don’t see why he would’ve stopped. My guess is that he learned something that it seems you may still have yet to: empathy.
I would recommend creating a Ventoy USB drive and download some live ISOs of your choice. Then boot them and let your BF try them. Because then he can choose a distro by his liking to the overall experience.
Jesus Christ, telling someone to kill themselves is so beyond just professional considerations – it is basic human decency to refrain from saying such things. I hope he continues to work on his behavior and finds a more productive way to interact with human beings.
As many seem to have overlooked itb this is from more than a decade ago.
And to those setting “not being toxic” == “being vague”:
Suggestion if you’re in a situation: separate the subject discussed from the person and, to the contrary to what is said in some other posts, be very specific!
Improvised example:
Hey all,
patch xyzz and its aftermath communication is unacceptable.
It’s content is not to the standards we have set here (explain).
Even worse, in the communication aftermath we blamed behavior of user space applications for bugs that are within our domain instead of owning up.
The bugs within the kernel will be focused on with highest priority by a, b and myself.
For the communication: (consequences). As explained the patterns shown here are unacceptable.
I have decided to no longer have x as a kernel maintainer on our team/enforce pairing for all communication/set up stricter consequence catalogue. Any specific action,really…
Not perfect as it’s very early here, I haven’t slept well and I’m not deep into the topic.
Just remember to separate subject to be discussed from person(s) acting please.
And always remember: bad communication is really easy and a lot of managers trained that their whole life! ♥
Reading this version I wouldn’t know the writer is deeply disappointed, frustrated and angry. It’s good you’re trying to improve the letter but this is exactly what many people don’t like about it: it changes the meaning. Perhaps you could include a paragraph which conveys this, such that the reader understands the gravity of the situation better.
I think removing someone’s maintainer status does communicate disappointment in their performance quite well.
And as for anger and frustration, these things really don’t matter in this circumstance. Work is not therapy. If you need to vent anger and frustration, get a therapist. Employees are employed to do their job, not to be the emotional punching bag for a manager who can’t control their temper.
If an employee doesn’t perform to expectations repeatedly and even after you had a few constructive one-on-ones, then demote them or fire them. No need to vent your anger on them and lose your professionalism.
Tbh, the first time a boss of mine loses their temper and verbally attacks a colleague like Linus did here, they have also lost all of my respect for them. And at that moment I will start to look for another job.
I am not and was not advocating for venting - just for communicating emotion. This can be as simple as:
“Your actions have deeply frustrated me and caused great anger on top of [technical reasons]. I would ask that you be more careful in the future.”
This ensures the reader not only understands they hurt Linux with their actions but also another human being. Many people will be more careful if they know they caused personal pain to an actual human being and not just to an abstract technical object such as a codebase.
I know I am going against established cultural norms in western business context - please don’t disregard my proposal just because it contradicts established culture.
I would disagree just because the success of the product (be it closed or open source) shouldn’t be dependent on the feelings of one person. You can be frustrated and angry, but it’s more useful to explain why you feel that way and what can be done to address it. Including your feelings only makes the person not want to do what specifically hurts you, not what is best for the project.
I do understand what you mean, and it makes much more sense than advocating for venting.
But I still feel that putting emotions into a discussion about work performance isn’t the right way, especially when done in public.
In a situation like that where something caused a lot of negative emotions (that go beyond your work performance is bad), I think you should have two separate talks. One about the factual things where one is boss and the other is employee, and one about the hurt/emotions the behaviour caused and in this talk, both are just people resolving their personal problems.
Something like the issue in the OP really shouldn’t cause anger on Linus’ side, since it’s a totally factual issue. A propper response would have been to decline/revert the change while publically saying “This change validates that rule of the project” and then privately contacting the maintainer in question and tell him, “We talked about this repeatedly, if you don’t stop, we need to take consequences.”
Emotions should really only enter the picture when personal offenses where comitted before or maybe if the employee did something with the intent to hurt the project/company/manager.
But if you get really angry because your employee did something wrong, then that’s a problem on the side of the manager and not on the side of the employee.
That said, I think it’s totally ok to tell the employee about the consequences of their actions (“We lost X amount of money” or “It took Y amount of time to correct it” or something like that).
But if you get really angry because your employee did something wrong, then that’s a problem on the side of the manager and not on the side of the employee.
This is probably taught in manager courses in order to protect their subordinates from managerial outbursts, which is a good cause, but they’re not quite right.
The Linux kernel is Torvalds life work. He literally spent most of the time he has on this planet on it, as did thousands others. Instead of watching his children grow, he made sure the planet gets a great operating system. It takes immeasurable effort to keep a vast software project in a good state - most large organisations with many times the resources fail to do so.
The maintainers behaviour represents a complete disregard for this sacrifice. They are showing through their actions that they don’t care that Torvalds and many others spent the little time they have on this planet on this software project instead of more fulfilling and joyful activities. I cannot imagine many more hurtful or disrespectful insults than this. It’s not far from saying their efforts are null and thus their life wasted.
I am saying all of this because I feel that you are speaking as a leader in a company, where you make sure other people’s money is spent productively. This not at all the same thing as what Torvalds is doing, because it’s not just a job, it is his literal life or life’s work.
This doesn’t excuse the behaviour, obviously - but it makes it very human. It’s good that he changed. I just hope we can find a middle ground between forced business speak and emotional outbreaks.
I’m not a manager (used to be team lead, but managing is not for me), but I’ve worked under a few coleric managers and some that where able to communicate in a sensible way.
One of my bosses, for example (that was the job where I was team lead) had a pretty similar style of communication as Linus.
Sure, the company was his life work. But I also started there shortly after the company was founded and I too spent a lot of time and was very emotionally invested in the company and the products. And my boss was just human (and on top didn’t know a lot about the subject), so he made mistakes. And his judgement was often wrong.
But he was never able to accept that he made any mistakes. He’d offload all his mistakes onto some employee, while claiming that every idea that worked out was his, and not the idea of the employee who actually had the idea and had to convince him first. And every time something went wrong, he’d slam the door of some employee open and shouted and swore at that employee.
Turns out, that’s not a great way to encourage people working there. Most of the good people quit after one especially bad explosion of his.
Back to Linus: is it human to be angry that someone disagrees with you? Maybe.
Is it in any way helpful to anyone? Clearly not.
I am pretty sure that anyone who gets to be a maintainer on the Linux kernel is heavily invested and has sacrificed a lot to get there. Attacking them like Linus did, that really renders their life work worthless.
The maintainer did nothing with the purpose to harm the Linux kernel project. He just accepted a change that he thought would improve Linux. Disagreeing on a factual topic with your boss should never trigger an explosion like that.
Oh that was in purpose! It shouldn’t matter that I personally am angry. My employees should never NEVER try to prevent me from being angry but focus on doing the best job they can.
That’s what I admire about Linus: he realized the negative impact his anger had on the performance of others - and fixed it!
To be clear: I can be angry - but my anger isn’t the reason I want things to change. Being angry is MY FAILURE as manager!
Think about it in another way: do you want your colleagues do things they thin prevent you from being disappointed, frustrated or angry - xor do you want then to move your collective goal forward no matter what you’d think.
Another example: if I’d be the one to have caused this communication mess I’d want my employees to call me out - even though I will get angry the moment I realize I’ve fucked up big time!
Ignoring emotions is very unhealthy. I understand that it is seen as desirable in a business context, but it is very unhealthy and detrimental in the long run.
I agree! Making someone aware of your feelings doesn’t mean exploding. You can just tell them. “I am very sad, frustrated and angry due to your actions. Please don’t do this again.” Is very clear and hurts no one.
I apologize - it wasn’t my intention to imply that at all! Emotional self management is a critical skill for managers - and that shouldn’t mean “go away, emotions!”. A trainer and coach I highly respect phrased it simply: “emotions are. They exist if we like them or not.”.
What I intended to convey was “do not use a public platform to channel your emotions.”
If this would’ve been a private conversation I would integrate an explanation of my current situation, feelings and context for my reaction. And also this sounds abstract it can totally be a “dude I’m absolutely pissed. I need you to work with me through this.” (this works btw in both meanings of “pissed” ;)).
Honestly, with this response although I think he didn’t deserve all of that from Linus, he did deserve quite a bit of it. So condescending and smug to application developers that actually make the user experience of Linux a good thing.
Okay, I agree that this is a really dickish way to respond to a dev, and I can see Torvald’s message being as much an olive branch to app devs as it was a thorough humbling of the maintainer. Still wouldn’t call it professional, but… I get it.
Seeing the rest of the thread really contextualizes Linus’ anger.
Only seeing the message from Linus makes him look like a dick. But when you see that he’s responding to someone deflecting blame and being a shithead to the guy trying to report a problem and provide a suggested fix, the aggressive response seems more justifiable.
Yes. I did not include patch from first person in screenshot because I thought it would make it too boring to read. But it kinda adds even more to context.
Replying to “I get this regression with KDE on this system caused by this commit and here how I fixed it” with “lol, pulseaudio sucks, opensuse sucks” of course will make Linus angry and he will reply not only “no u”, but also “and here’s why”.
linuxmemes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.