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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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."
I've heard he's not perfect but he doesn't lose his temper anymore and has only gotten better with age. I respect anyone who can self reflect and introspect and come out a better person.
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.
