Consider These changes look OK, but the rationale is dangerously wrong. It doesn't require Linus to pretend he's "not sure" about a rationale that he obviously thinks is both wrong and dangerous, but it's less personally insulting, shorter, and more on topic.
I don’t know if that matters, but it strikes me as odd that people who seem to appreciate how this site works think that Linus is some exception because of just how mission critical he is. I also think it likely reflects the lack of soft skills some here have that they can’t imagine a better way being as or more effective, despite the living example of HN itself.
> It [the rewrite] has 43% as many words, but loses none of the meaning. It's still forceful and unambiguous.
Yet, I found the rewrite to be feeble and ambivalent.
> If you were in the "I'm afraid that being nicer would hurt Linux" group, do you think that this email is worse? Yes.
I wanted to add one additional question. Are there environments where ad hominem and disrespect are actually important cultivators of competency and reverence for the nature of the underlying task. Might there be instances where the collective is better off with Mr. Torvalds than Mr. Rogers?
I'll add, you accurately used the word shepherded and I thought, "I imagine there are times when sheep aren't too pleased to be handled by a crook". Maybe the Kernel Mailing List is Linus's crook...
1. Bad, but I won’t swear at you.
2. I’m not sure what I think, might be ok but needs more discussion
3. Merge them, but I want to swear about the proposed reason, because it’s bad.
I think 3 is the least likely, but nothing in the email unambiguously rules it out. I think 2 is the most likely interpretation.
There’s something funny about people saying “Linus’s style is valuable because he makes things clear” in response to a post where we can’t agree on what he meant.
You'd really forget an email from the head of the project (the "CEO," to use another user's example on here) telling you you've messed up, just because the language was neutral?
I'm not sure I understand that. I don't think most people need yelling and raving in order to know something is important or understand what needs to get done.
Even so, I'm sure better versions exist. Do you have an idea of a polite-but-forceful rewrite of this email that'd be more effective?
As to the supposed “danger,” I think the author may be reading into it too much. Linus himself says he could “live with” the changes. That, to me, does not sound in any way dangerous. What he has a problem with is the reasoning behind why these changes should be made. “This is a bad idea” covers that.
Quibbling over wording doesn’t change the fact that he can effectively get the point across in half the words without insulting anyone or going off on a rant.
It is actually a positive rather than negative if author was not motivated to write his blog post by the Linus rant/abuse. It would have meant the Linus was able to get the message across with his abrasive style.
As to the actual detail of the author's proposed rewordings:
> I'm not talking about the changes themselves - I can live with them. But the _rationale_ is pure and utter garbage, and dangerously so.
becomes
> These changes look OK, but I'm not sure about the rationale.
This rewording imparts an entirely different message to the original. If I read the latter, as a programmer, I would get the impression that Linus thought the commit was "OK". He clearly did not. At no point in his email does he indicate that anything is "OK" about this commit in any way.
> The caps in "AND STANDARD" is another way to indicate frustration [...] None of these carry any meaning about the technical problem; they're just expressions of anger. [...] Most critically, it's possible to describe the danger of this code without
It's important to point out that the author says "it's possible to describe the danger of this code without". He's describing danger but his rewording removes all emphasis, urgency or import in the tone of the email.
> If you were in the "I'm afraid that being nicer would hurt Linux" group, do you think that this email is worse?
Yes.
I'm sorry, but while the argument that Linus makes excessive use of ad hominem and is disrespectul is a valid one, and he could/should temper that, this example is a failure to demonstrate how it would improve things. The final email draft in the blog post is milquetoast; I would forget it within minutes if I were on that list.