As a northern European I find it not only comfortable that Linus runs Linux, but I would be less comfortable if it was another American smile in face pretend to be your friend but be shady as fuck attitude that you guys seem to confuse for 'professionalism'.

So let's chalk this to cultural differences. We wouldn't hire someone like you and you wouldn't hire someone like him.

I never said that Linus should be fake friendly. I am saying that swearing does damage to moral and the power of his arguments.

Also, Steve Jobs was a notorious asshole and he is revered in the US despite this. There are countless other examples of CEOs and managers who are more than unfriendly in the US who are looked at as examples of how one should behave to be 'professional'.

Your being 'northern European' has nothing to do with any of what we are talking about. Maybe you can chalk your reaction to your apparent false sense of superiority over friendliness and, it seems, Americans.

Tact can be very usefull in small teams where trust and coordination is important.

For large projects, with thousands of stake holders the bar to participate in a conversation should be high.

As we both say in Holland: we are not made of sugar. But go read Linus rant now and ask yourself: would this really classify as an inappropriate rant in Holland? Or are you just, parroting the default (mostly from the US) critique on Linus?

Because this whole 'Linus isn't tactfull' is a false comparision. He is more approachable than any other person in that sort of position. Since there isn't a big filter at the door based on who somebody is but there is a verbal filter at the table. Very egalitarian if you ask me. Very Dutch like.

And our directness is often referred to as rude. It would look better on you to not blindly follow in that judgement when it concerns others.

For example: >Maybe you can chalk your reaction to your apparent false sense of superiority over friendliness and, it seems, Americans

If out of the mouth of Linus would be one of those 'look at how insensitive Linus is' posts. Something with the pot and the kettle.

In fact, here's an edit which gets his point over in less words, and more clearly:

"Honestly, this looks questionable to me. [U]sing a union to do type punning is the traditional AND STANDARD way to do type punning in gcc. In fact, it is the documented way to do it for gcc. The fact is that gcc documents type punning through unions as the "right way". You may disagree with that, but using the [C] standard to push it - the same standard that came up with the completely mis-guided aliasing rules - is not a valid argument. his is why we use -fwrapv, -fno-strict-aliasing etc. The standard simply is not important, when it is in direct conflict with reality and reliable code generation.

So what's the _real_ reason for avoiding union aliasing?"

No swearing, no abuse, all points covered, less typing required. No talk of splinters.

The chances that you get to hear things from the source and never hear things in a way you don't like is almost zero. You have to make a decision.

"...when you are a f*cking moron" "Andy, what is the background for trying to push this idiocy?"

Note that I only called the other swearing in his text childish and not damaging to morale. Also note that in verbal discussions I wouldn't myself shy away from swearing or graphic metaphors. I just think that when replying to pull-requests there should be some emotional self-control... something which children have less of.

> Something with the pot and the kettle.

As I said, confronting people isn't on some list of don'ts that I keep and replying to comments filled with false assumptions and accusations is not the same as replying to a pull-request.

>would this really classify as an inappropriate rant in Holland?

If I were to call my colleagues fucking morons and call their contributions idiocies I would probably at least receive some negative feedback from my boss. So yes. I find it hard to believe that calling people 'fucking morons' is an accepted practice at your job.

> And our directness is often referred to as rude. It would look better on you to not blindly follow in that judgement when it concerns others.

But blindly following some judgement of Americans being two-faced liars does look good on you? Something with pots and kettles?

When I play games like Rocket League, a game where you depend on your teammates, I rarely say anything if people play badly. Others will say things to me if I play badly and that sometimes makes me play even worse depending on my mood. Sometimes I play worse because they actually made me care less and sometimes I play worse on purpose because they were a real asshole and they deserve a loss.

It's pretty obvious that antagonizing and disparaging your teammates is generally a bad plan anywhere.

My feeling is that people who need to be abusive of others are compensating some of their feelings about themselves. I think everybody does this though, I am no angel myself either. I just thought that people who are highly visible and in some way represent our industry, like Linus, should not be praised for being 'bad ass' when they are needlessly rude to people who are contributing. On a whole though, anyone can do what they want, and I can form an opinion based on what people do of course ;)

Yes, haha, Rocket League teammates sometimes don't excel at being good sports.

This is a false dichotomy.

Most of what Linus says would run foul of HN's guidelines - which I'll paraphrase here as "don't call someone an asshole before making your real point", but that doesn't mean that everyone on HN is a 'smile in face pretend to be your friend but be shady as fuck'.

Keep in mind that you're much more likely to see it when he explodes at someone, because that's more entertaining to read. Most of what he writes in the ordinary work of building a kernel is unobjectionable.

I doubt there is difference between about how often people resent other people around the world. But I do consider it more humane if resentment isn't hidden under the surface. It's easier to trust Linus than a tactfull politician. That should make us all think.

I can kinda see where you're going with this, ie. the idea that knowing what someone is thinking means you can trust them... but I disagree.

To my mind verbal abuse doesn't mean they're speaking their mind, it means they've lost control.

Based on these blow-ups I'd certainly question trusting Torvalds in any high stakes situation that required tact under pressure... which I would expect to happen frequently when running a country.

Huh? When are kernel developers in high stakes situations that require tact? He doesn't host peace talks for a living. He manages Linux. He needs to be trusted for high stakes situations requiring technical clarity and technical decision making. And between our phones, our internet services and our banking infrastructure, basically everybody in modern society depends on the linux kernel working correctly.

> To my mind verbal abuse doesn't mean they're speaking their mind, it means they've lost control.

What? I just don't see it that way at all. If he'd lost control the criticism would be less technically grounded, and he wouldn't have merged the patch anyway. To me, Torvald's temper clearly expresses the value of "make the kernel good, don't make it be bad". Blowing up like this is an expensive social signal - it shows that to him the kernel being good is so important that he's willing to risk losing face and support to do so. I agree with other commenters that there are probably better ways he could get his point across; but how he expresses himself is completely authentic and aligned with his value of technical competence.

And that buys a lot of trust in my eyes.

And I don't think its just me. Trump does the same thing, and I suspect the "I can trust him because he gets angry" vibe helped him get elected. (For better or worse.)

Parent commenter made a comparison between Torvalds and politicians. I was exploring that comparison.

> If he'd lost control the criticism would be less technically grounded, and he wouldn't have merged the patch anyway.

Losing control in one way doesn't mean losing control in all ways. Saying someone has "lost control" doesn't automatically mean that they've shat themselves, for example.

I mention this here because kristianic made the valid point that you have set up a false dichotomy, and you replied with a statement that keeps it going. Is the habit of not paying attention to the actual issues also part of your superior Northern European culture, and, in fact, is it perhaps a reason why insults are apparently such an important part of it?

That being said, I feel that if I were in a managerial position here in the Bay Area I would probably adopt a smile and softer language because that's what people are used to. The challenge is being genuine while putting people at ease so that they can do their best work.

"Why did you cook this? Are you fucking stupid?"

I'm in the military, and if you can't control what you say, you shouldn't be respected.

In the military with all the hierarchy this wouldn't happen because no small private would be arrogant enough to throw their opinion in the top generals and president face without being asked.

The whole point of the rudeness is that it does give space for people to voice their opinion irregardless of their rank. Only at the risk of being somewhat insulted.

If anything, swearing clouds what you really mean. "Is he saying 'fuck' because he thinks the policy was unfairly applied, or because it was misunderstood? I don't know bro, but at least he's being honest".

I don't care that Linus swears, he hasn't invaded anyone or harmed anyone as far as I know. I don't care that Trump swears, I care about the stupid stuff he actually does.

Linus may swear, but he also protects us from bad code and I value that, because in the end, words don't do anything, actions do.

Rather, I'm saying that EVEN in the military, with some of the most insensitive people around, swearing indicates lack of self-control and situational awareness.

I once saw a doc about the alarming levels of rape in the U.S. military. Some of these guys were pretty high rank, so I guess they fooled everyone that they possessed self-control, (perhaps they didn't swear), but in reality they clearly lacked self-control. I only bring up this example to explain my point, I know there are many officers who don't swear and don't lack self-control, but my point is that the lack of swearing doesn't really prove anything, nor does the presence of swearing.

Obviously swearing is a big thing, but not when leading. You'll have exceptions with some of the line units of course, but that's a culture that won't change.

If I saw one of my squad leaders cursing at someone for doing something dumb, then I'd know that supposed leader just failed that Soldier. At ease those emotions, get your point across, and hold them accountable. If you can't do that without throwing a hissy fit, take off those stripes.

Yes, there are cultural differences between the US and Europe.

No, that doesn't mean that Europe agrees with your opinion on what constitutes acceptable behaviour in the software community. You do not speak for us.

It's quite refreshing, even.

I'm sure the difference is due to lattitude. A little bit of getting heated is ill advised in the scorching sun.

I'm just asking this to see if this culture is one way or goes both ways...

The honest reaction to any post like this is to just report it because the only entertainment factor is the drama.

That won't tell you anything about LKML culture, either.

If you want a better sense of lkml than social media hot takes can deliver, go lurk it for a month.

He never needed any protection; Linus always wrote like this. Back in the argument with Tanenbaum in '92, when he was a nobody, he already wrote stuff like "your job is being a professor and researcher: That's one hell of a good excuse for some of the brain-damages of minix. I can only hope (and assume) that Amoeba doesn't suck like minix does."

https://mobile.linuxtoday.com/security/minix-the-most-popula...

His idea is that he wants to make his feelings as clear as possible. He mentioned a case where some guy attempted suicide after working months on a kernel patch that he rejected. He blames himself for not being clear enough about what he felt about the idea before work has started.

When you say "People put time and energy in making software better, at least in their own eyes, for others and then they get textually abused". That's actually the whole point. Linus doesn't want you to put time and energy in what he perceives as a lost cause.

Not saying that what he does is good or bad, just saying what I think his rationale for using harsh language is.

I don't know if that's good or not, but it's not just in software that harsh words are used. And their stridency makes clear that this is an exceptionally significant point. I imagine that Linus's many more blandly worded emails don't result in this level of attention, so you wouldn't even be aware of his points there.

In this case, Torvalds is swearing at someone who agrees with him (see Andy Shevchenko's response) because he hasn't bothered to seek clarification before calling it "pure and utter garbage".

   Yeah, there were few reasons why I decide to make that patch (OK, it seems I staked on not the best reason).

I don't want to assume too much about your wife's job or personality, but I'd also assume she would swear in a way that was reciprocal with those under therapy, based on a communication style they had established together... as opposed to her swearing at them while they were being perfectly polite.

It'd certainly make a good sitcom.

"we're fucked" <-- feared consequence

"You are fucking us up!" <-- your actions are harming the group.

Not "you are a fuck" and no shunning from the group.

I don't care for the tone, and all the dark patterns could be there too in the meeting, but your single quote on its own is not evidence of dysfunction.

You shouldn't sell yourself short. Changing the way you communicate is a huge but worthwhile challenge.

In a different time, I would have been mean to you over your comment instead of offering supportive words. It took as much effort to be nice as it used to take to be mean.

'Hey, great that you took the time to contribute, here are a few suggestions though.'

I am talking about things like: 'If you think xyz, then you are a fucking moron'.

The constructive part, not destructive, is in the alternatives proposed. So, plus minus zero in my mind, the emotional aspect is just a grab for attention, and ...