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 think whoever recieved this would be completely fine to report Linus to HR or something. The fact somebody thought to circulate it is suggestive that it crossed a line. I do appreciate he does seem to really care about the kernel. He could maybe tone down the hysterics a little.
I think if there’s a lesson here its “Never hit send while you’re angry” always wait until your hormones to subside before sending an email because emails are records and people don’t have good judgement while angry, so an email sent in anger is just a record of your poor judgement.
Does the Linux Foundation even have HR? Even if they did, does an employee of a separate company even have the ability to make a complaint about Linus with them?
For the first part, no clue, but for the second, absolutely
Just because you work for someone else doesn’t give them the right to treat you badly and that sort of behavior can and should be reported to a person’s employer.
I think whoever recieved this would be completely fine to report Linus to HR or something.
As unnecessary as the tone was, if your first reaction to such a form of address is to run to HR, you’re contributing to a toxic workplace. The first and foremost way to address etiquette problems (I am not including criminal behavior in this) is to talk directly to the person who offended you. Everyone has a bad day once in a while, and some people may even shout. If the first reaction is to get them into legal trouble with the employer, most people will rightfully avoid you like you just stepped into dogshit.
If this kind of behavior - despite having addressed it face to face - keeps occurring, that’s a different issue, then HR may be necessary.
An individual misbehaving does not constitute a toxic workplace. If you can’t tell people that you think their tone is inappropriate, then take it to your manager, but going straight to HR is about the dumbest way to deal with this. Some people don’t even realize they overstepped but might be able to empathize once informed.
Oh yeah, when your boss has anger issues and curses you in email, you really want to politely talk to him and ask him to stop. That will show them that you’re a little spineless sucker and can be shat on indefinitely.
Yes, even to your boss you can say that you feel something could have been communicated in a more friendly way. “Anger issues” implies the repeated occurrence for which I already stated before that is a different situation.
The term is “hostile work environment”. HR doesn’t just respond because of strict liability. Just one occurance of something like this can lead to an otherwise solid worker to spiral from discomfort of the situation, both feeling like a prisoner at their job and producing far less value for their employers.
The latter is why HR cares, but the former is why it’s OKay to go straight to HR. If HR is well-trained, things like this shouldn’t escalate just because you went to HR. They should be able to diffuse it productively.
You have obviously never dealt with a real-world scenario. Going straight to HR for someone being verbally(!) out of line, without even using insults, means you are the bigger problem.
Actually, I’ve watched two GREAT workers and good people end up losing their jobs because a easily resolved situation turned toxic. The person who felt uncomfortable tried to take care of it 1-on-1 but had too passive aggressive a nature to really be clear when she confronted the guy.
So 6 months or a year later, she was on the verge of quitting and went to HR. He was terminated because it had gone too far. She left soon after because she still wasn’t comfortable at work after the cause of that ended.
…look. I “obviously never dealt” with anything because nobody is allowed differing opinions here, but I have 20+ years experience at businesses where the existence or lack of good HR has been a deciding factor of the work-culture and comfort level of team members. I work 1-on-1 with my company’s Directors of HR on a regular basis to make sure my team is happy and because I am involved with other teams at my job who have their own interpersonal conflicts. One of HR’s responsibilities in a good company is to involve themselves in interpersonal conflicts BEFORE decisive action has to be taken.
The problem is that face-to-face confrontations without a mediator don’t always end well. And I would rather not have HR decide “we have to fire our Rockstar senior dev or this random guy”. But if you address it earlier, HR deals with it earlier (yes, because the paper trail m eans HR can’t just fire “this random guy” later over the Rockstar senior dev). It’s win-win for all parties INCLUDING the Linus Torvalds in this explanation.
But I’ve “obviously never dealt with a real-world scenario” and my experience doesn’t count. So you can ignore everything I said.
You are under the very relevant misassumption that HR is less likely to be handling a situation inappropriately than two people speaking with each other directly. I stand by my original comment. A simple verbal overstep, on the first occurrence, should definitely be addressed without involving HR
Hard disagree. This letter is what happens when direct communications have failed.
Realistically, somebody near Linus probably told him to chill out and that he’s damaging his own reputation and his project’s by sending out this temper tantrum bullshit. In no world would the target of this letter be the person who successfully sits him down and lectures him on not being an asshole.
But honestly if he had a habit of sending out this kind of stuff it would be a liability/legal problem.
This is far from the first (or last) time he wrote something like this. This was just a regular thing in the kernel world for a long time (until Linus matured a little).
Whether or not it was a good thing is up for debate I think. Yeah, it’s very rude and unprofessional (and discourages new contributors who don’t want to risk getting chewed out), but considering the importance of the Linux kernel, it’s good to know the lead maintainer is doing too much of the right thing than not enough (i.e. being lax with bad code in order to be respectful). I’m fine knowing that a few tech workers got their egos smashed if it gives me confidence that the code powering civilization is high quality.
I agree, it’s completely unacceptable to introduce a bug and then to instead of taking responsibility for introducing such a bug, you start pointing fingers at everybody else.
It’s like when a car hits a cyclist following all the rules and then tries to blame the cyclist for not following some made up rules that only exist in the drivers head “Cyclists should be on the SIDEWALK if they don’t wanna get hit!”
Not only were they wrong to hit them, they’re DOUBLE wrong for trying to blame them after the fact.
You’re agreeing with something I didn’t state. I’m not defending the idea of introducing bugs through bad code and then blaming others. I think the way Linus responded to that was the issue.
After I saw the car hit the cyclist, I rushed to his aid.
The driver came out of the car, yelling at the cyclist for being on the street.
“Shut the fuck up. Get back in your car. You are the problem. It was wrong of you to hit him and wrong of you to blame him you fucking idiot. You can help, or you can fuck off, but you’re not going to stand here and blame the man you just injured with your own incompetence”, I screamed at the driver.
I don’t think I am missing the forest. There’s not an issue with the idea of correcting a developer, but there is an issue in the way the correction was carried out. Just because something behaves “better” after punishment doesn’t mean the punishment was good. Ends justifying means and all.
That’s very “ends justify the means” of you. No, that’s not the question here. Linus could have gotten the same results without the yelling and insults. You do not need either of those to be direct, assertive, and clear on what the issue is, something that Linus has since learned
Both Mauro and Linus are human. I trust them to be so. I don’t get the point of endlessly pontificating about human quirks & behavior, we are all not assembled from the same factory. And we all grow and we learn. No one’s perfect.
Plus, your argument fails to address the main issue here, Mauro needing to realize that he needs to improve in order to continue contributing to a project shared among many people and one passionately guarded by Linus as his baby.
Nah it’s completely fine. I vastly prefer an angry-sounding takedown over a passive aggressive takedown and a takedown Mauro definitely deserved because his code was, in fact, utter shite, and that as a maintainer. This isn’t “oh he’s a noob he doesn’t know how the kernel works” type of territory. Also note that this happened after he had been told what’s up in a neutral and factual way: Linus, even in his most management by perkele days, never made those things the first reply to anything. So Mauro got his chance to spot that he fucked up and correct his approach, he didn’t, therefore, it has to be said loudly. Simple as that.
Also, no “you should be aborted retroactively” in sight anywhere. Yeah that stuff wasn’t necessary even though everyone with an ounce of social intelligence should readily spot that those insults were always so over the top as to be obviously humorous.
It’s possible to be assertive and assign responsibility for a screwup without being a dick. “Being a dick” is the nothing else has worked option, not step one.
“being a dick” and “assertive” are weasel terms which do a hell a lot of lifting in your argument there. I have no idea where your line for behaviour to be deemed acceptable actually is.
IMO, no, Linus wasn’t a dick. He called out a specific attitude and behaviour which Mauro is not supposed to show in his role as maintainer. What about Mauro being a dick because he went in all self-righteous like “this is a bug in pulseaudio”?
If you were a restaurant manager, and a server told a customer that he’s not going to serve beer with steak but only wine because “drinking beer with steak is obviously wrong”, what would you do? Chew them out, of course. It’s way out of line. This isn’t Linus exploding over nothing just to bully someone, that’s a thing he has never done.
If you want someone toxic to complain about in the FOSS space pick Lennart Poettering, the kind of guy who replies to “We’d like to be able to disable various features to keep things small” with “why do you hate disabled people they need accessibility”. More generally speaking: Focussing on tone never ends up well. You can be incredibly toxic in the most flowery of idioms.
Your example is from one of this industries notorious for being toxic – that doesn’t make it right.
“Why would you think that’s even remotely acceptable? Now I have to go apologize and possible comp a meal.” Depending on the circumstance: take them off that table, send them home, or fire them. Being in control of themselves is one of the defining aspects of leadership, and being abusive is the sign a “leader” that isn’t.
If they start being a dick: sure, game on – so long as you’re not demeaning yourself doing it. But most people are capable of a degree of self reflection and accountability once you make the situation clear to them, and they deserve that chance. Sometimes people don’t even realize they’re the ones that screwed up, even when it’s obvious to everyone else.
There’s it again. What, precisely, is it that makes Linus’ comment “abusive”? Is he gaslighting? Is he attacking Mauro over what he is? All I see is calling out, harshly, what Mauro did, behaviour that actually occurred and that is not acceptable and that Mauro knows is not acceptable. “We do not break userspace” is the rule #1 of Linux development, Mauro ignored it and was a dick about it.
Or do you disagree with the tone of the whole thing. Things like “Shut up” instead of “This is not up for discussion”. If so, then please for the love of the gods please shut up.
Maybe fair in a typical setting, but getting iffy around programmers, especially kernel maintainers. I’m convinced linux and foss in general would not exist without the autism spectrum, and who knows maybe even borderline personality disorders
I like that Linus is so strict on not breaking user space because this obviously aids with compatibility and it’s probably a big part of why rolling releases work.
But I sure hope Linus’ eventual successor won’t be toxic and…cringe. It’s hard to take someone serious when he’s raging this much.
I like that Linus is so strict on not breaking user space because this obviously aids with compatibility and it’s probably a big part of why rolling releases work.
I think kernel still has compatibility with paleolithic glibc enabled by default
So Linus should have sided with someone who in regression report of KDE using 100% CPU starts blaming pulseaudio and opensuse and double down on blaming pulseaudio? Instead of fixing syscall returning completely unrelated error code. It’s like if your router crashed with message “there is no milk in your fridge”.
There’s a difference between disagreeing with someone and insulting and attacking someone, and if you can’t tell that there’s a difference you can go fuck yourself with a cactus, you cumdrowned dicksphincter.
Honestly, if such incompetent developers weren’t as arrogant as to argue how their bullshit is the right way to go, I would agree with you. But instead their bullshit philosophy is the expected way to work in many places, and it’s the cancer of computer development, so the anger is deserved IMO.
For sure. It’s funny in a way, but this is not a great way to treat folks that are trying to contribute, often on their own time. This could have been rephrased in so many other ways where Linus doesn’t come off as a total jerk, and still be “right” with the same message.
This is a message to an @redhat address, as you might notice. Mauro gets paid to work on the kernel and is not a noob who doesn’t know better, either, he’s a maintainer who fucked up basic maintenance.
I just wish for all of us to become more accustomed to working on ourselves instead of projecting the need to develop virtue on others. Linus actually did it, doesn’t mean that he was an asshole before. Brash, sure, crass, yes, but actual assholes don’t calm down as easily.
I kindly disagree with most of what you said. Linus is brilliant, and I appreciate his contributions not just to technology and freedom but also to society. However, this does not pardon the hardships he has also brought upon others.
It’s important to be honest in code reviews, but his language, while also honest, goes far and beyond that. We’re doing ourselves a disservice defending this behavior as if it’s a standard of communication quality that people should strive for, or learn how to behave like.
Current-day Linus wouldn’t react much differently. Cut the “shut the fuck up”, the one or other “fuck” (but not all, some need to be there for emphasis), done. It’s the real personal shit, the “should be aborted retroactively” stuff, that he cut out. “Obvious garbage and idiocy” is a technical term, programmers apply it to their own work all the time. Compilers are more technical in their language but we know what they mean.
And was this mail, seen in its total impact, a hardship? He went down hard, yes, and thousands upon thousands of Linux users breathed a sigh of relief, seeing that Mauro’s attitude towards userland doesn’t fly.
The hardest-hitting sentence in that mail is actually “You have shown yourself to not be competent in this issue”. Absolutely devastating. Taking context into account it’s the equivalent of telling a professional cook that their ingredients suck, what they did with them sucks, and most of all that the gall which which they claimed that the customer is wrong about their dinner sucking is completely, and utterly, unprofessional.
Of course that’s hard on Mauro. There’s no way to tell someone about such an epic cock-up without being hard. But not going that far, avoiding that hardship for some notion of civility, now that would be right-out cruel.
Please defend these statements for me. I’m having a hard time understanding how this is language we should strive for in a code review, even with your explanation.
As to tone: How is “this is not up for discussion” and “obvious mistakes and thoughtlessness” any better? As a reader I’d be inclined to think that you think of me as having the emotional maturity of a toddler.
I believe that excellent communication can be had without engineers swearing at each other, and I don’t think there are is any good rationale that warrants such behavior. You believe that there is a time and purpose for the style of conversation that Linus portrayed, and it is warranted and effective behavior.
I’m going to agree to disagree from here. Thanks for the conversation.
and I don’t think there are is any good rationale that warrants such behavior
For one, the boss setting the tone as to include “shut up” means that you won’t get written up for responding in a similar register. It allows for emotionality, instead of burdening the recipient of the dress-down not just with addressing their own behaviour, but also the emotional labour to respond in a way the tone police deems acceptable. Maybe paradoxically (for people lacking emotional intelligence), that makes emotional responses less likely as the recipient isn’t as emotionally boxed in, doesn’t see walls in every direction.
The line that you shouldn’t cross is making things personal – talking about what someone (presumably) is, instead of what they did. But that applies to any register, “Please come to HR to discuss your identity” isn’t someone anyone should ever hear. Persons can be demeaned and belittled, but not behaviour: Behaviour doesn’t have emotions, dignity, whatever.
This has some real “don’t be intolerant towards the intolerant” energy.
Yes, sometimes insults are justified. No, when an employee/volunteer helper doesn’t share your view is not one of those times. Yes, when you’re confronted with a toxic fuck and those defending his toxic behavior is one of those times.
There’s a hell of a difference between calling random commenters “dickriders” and having your boss, whom you have a very unequal relationship with, berate you like this.
He is the dickrider I’m talking about. Being contrarian for their beloved Linus.
Me saying one derisive word on an online forum is not exactly the same as a business environment where your for the lack of a better word boss is publicly cussing you out and humiliating you. There are a million other ways to get the point across without being an ass about it.
Well, he isn’t anyone’s boss here. I agree, and so would linus nowadays, that this is toxic and should be avoided, but the anger I fully understand.
Attempting to shift blame away from yourself after making a change which breaks a large portion of user space is cause for termination at any company I’ve worked at. It’s cowardice. This action goes against one of the most important, core philosophies, of the kernal. Do not break userspace. Also, this person should know better. They are not some odd newbie who may not grasp the ideas yet.
In a world where termination is not an option harsh criticism is required. This though, I agree, was anger driven unprofessionalism
I think there may also be a cultural angle here. Anglo-Saxon culture really places a much higher emphasis on “not causing offense”, whereas other cultures place a higher emphasis on speaking truthfully, even if harshly.
So Linus, who grew up in Finland, may have thought of his message as harsh but fair, whereas to native English speakers it comes across as incredibly rude.
It doesn’t come across as particularly rude given what the offense here is. Someone blamed other projects for their mistake after getting called out. That deserves harsh criticism.
I think you are talking about American ideals. Not ideals in the English speaking world. Nothing here is remotely toxic by British standards. Swearing isn’t a big deal here, people regularly call each other swear words as a sign of affection. If someone does something stupid you can say they are acting like an idiot and hopefully they will listen. If you didn’t they might not think you are serious.
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”.
Linus doesn’t love that, he literally got therapy to not be like that. Maybe there’s a lesson there for you.
In fact, in a more recent talk he mentioned being horrified at the sort of people who liked how he spoke and the way they assumed he shared their political opinions as a significant motivator.
I just love people that don’t beat around the bush and are straight to the point. We have enough snowflakes and bullshitters in this world IMO. Everyone’s so sensitive all the time, like… grow up and own your mistakes. And a wake up call guy like Linus is exactly what people need.
But, having one definitely raises alarams about the seriousness of the issue… and this was a serious issue, not breaking user space is why we’re still using Linux. If it broke something on every update, I’m sure we would have opted for something else a long time ago… so would every server on this earth, as well as Google for Android.
If you think it is acceptable to lash out at someone you’re mean and if you can’t find ways to communicate clearly without lashing out you’re a bad communicator.
Linux/open source has a massive problem with finding maintainers and contributors for critical projects and a significant contributor is just how awful the communication culture of programmers is.
Nope, actually I’m fairly calm. I only lash out when others do it at me first, but I own up (not lash out) if I was to blame. And the guy did own up, and that’s great IMO, he admitted he was wrong. Bravo 👏.
Kernel devs are like mini-gods, so I can understand them being with their nose up in the clouds a bit… and they completely deserve that, they’re the driving force behind what we use every day, for free I might add. But, since Linus started the whole thing, it’s his show, he’s running it. If he doesn’t like what’s being done, and especially if it’s bullshit code, yes, I completely understand him lashing out… I might not do it that way, but I feel that there is nothing wrong with that either.
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” ;)).
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.
If he was my boss and he treated me like this I would absolutely hold it against him! Honestly I don’t care how much an employee fucks up, there is no excuse for abusing them.
Even more so because Torvalds is not his boss and the guy is a volunteer that is not being paid for his contribution.
I’m glad Torvalds was the bigger man and got help for his temper.
Yeah, I completely agree, the guy’s a duche, blaiming others for his mistake (assumption, that leads to a shitty PR, which is a mistake).
As I said, if I did that, I would gladly take the heat from Linus. Own up to your mistake. Yes, you do deserve to be called names. You’re a maintainer for the most wide spread kernel in the world. “But I don’t get paid…”. You can quit at any time pal, no one is forcing you to do it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I went to LKML for context, so I return with context.
When 3.8-rc1 was released, “Rafael J. Wysocki” reported 100% CPU usage by knotify4(part of KDE) on OpenSUSE Thubleweed with pulseaudio as audio server.
At which Mauro Carvalho Chehab replies starting with blaming pulseaudio(why? Srsly, why? I don’t like it, but this is just troll behaviour) and saying pulseaudio(which is NOT knotify4) should not try to use V4L2.
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.
That’s why you should never put people on a pedestal. There are a lot of people I admire, but I always try to imagine them being stupid assholes most of the time to balance things out in my head.
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.
As already stated it’s less about the facts being communicated and more about the way they’re being communicated.
I would posit that the mismatch in the style of communication lead to you needing more time to clue in. And in that way, the initial feedback might have been an inefficient way to relay the point.
However it’s also entirely possible that trying to package it in a better way, the point of the feedback-giver would have gotten lost, leading you not to clue in at all.
Communication is hard, especially tailoring it to the expected audience. That being said I don’t think being an asshole is ever ok, unless it directly saves lives or something. 😅
Add comment