If Linux gets measurably worse after this, then would you support sending Linus to a second therapist to make him more of an asshole again?
(I hold the position i do precisely because it's backed by research, not just my own random thoughts and experiences)
It's probably not that being an asshole is good. It's that if you are a genius/visionary and nice, your genius gets diluted by the people around you. Let's build a genius/asshole map:
1. Genius, non-asshole: You start a genius-level thing, it is brilliant and awesome. As it progresses, less brilliant people get involved. They start wanting power and influence. You know that the things they want to do kind of suck, but you're too nice to tell them that. Over time, they ascend to positions of power, because you, out of niceness, allow them to, and your thing descends into mediocrity.
2. Non-genius, asshole: You're just mean to everyone. If you start any sort of thing at all, it goes nowhere, because it's not very good, and nobody wants to work with you.
3. Non-genius, non-asshole: You're nice, but so are lots of people. This goes nowhere.
4. Genius, asshole: You start a brilliant thing, because you're brilliant. You're mean to people who deliver anything but the absolute best results. So who stays with you? People who always deliver the best results, or, alternatively, people so enamored with your genius or the thing you've created that they're willing to tolerate it. Congratulations, you've managed to filter your underlings to only the best and most passionate people - you have a high probability of achieving something great.
Note that this is not an endorsement of this behavior. Just an attempt at explaining why it is that these types of personalities seem so common among highly successful people.
However, what about a genious which politely replies something along the lines of "I'm very sorry but I don't think your contribution aligns with the goals and/or philosophy of this project.". That is not a nice nor an asshole response. After reading Linus' text, it seems to me he intends to get somewhere near this point.
I agree that, in principle, someone could do that. But I think in practice the people who can stand firm in that response, while remaining polite over many years, are pretty unusual.
Do you really think you can provide that kind of consistent response to different types of people? Your reply is most of the time dependent on the people you are interacting. It is very easy to draw a nice person to a fight or being rude. It is very hard to analyze because the scenario sample space is infinite.
I think that now, today, Linus could afford to be less of an asshole. But I honestly wonder if the project would've have succeeded so well without him being so strict and demanding in the beginning.
EDIT: Yes, I think that it is possible to be strict and demanding without doing ad-hominem attacks and without swearing. It's just that it's very rare.
As someone once said, "If the person who made your computer wasn't an asshole, it probably wouldn't even turn on."
Obviously, that quote is utter hogwash, but it might be worth saying explicitly, at least for HN culture: cooperation is essential, and would you cooperate with an asshole?
Wouldn't Steve Jobs be a counterexample to this? And possibly Bill Gates?
Remember that Apple (etc) have been troubled at many times through their history with him at the helm :)
Gates also eventually left in part because he was doing more harm than good (and has tried to turn himself into a more reasonable person it seems).
Compare that to the organization that MS is now under a leader who isn't an asshole?
I'm certainly not going to claim you can't make a successful company or organization by being a brilliant asshole. I'm only claiming it eventually catches up with you, and over time, ends up a net negative for the organization.
To give an example: Elon clearly drives tesla in it's current position. Do you think at some point he will not be a clear net negative to the organization?
(It's also interesting to me that essentially the only counterexamples people have tried to raise are CEO's - i'm curious if this means people believe what i say is true for lower levels but not founders/ceos/etc, or what)
Am I downplaying his donations? Not at all. It's just that doing a good thing does not cancel out the bad.
The second is what people are working for - which is to say themselves or the firm. My definition of an "arsehole" is someone who fights to get themselves up the corporate ladder, treating the exercise as a zero sum game. So if they see someone above them occupying a desirable spot, they will back stab, white ant them in an effort to dislodge them from the spot so they can take it.
All this has very little to do with their demeanour. Some people are good at communicating. Some are bloody hopeless. It's nice to deal with people that area really good at handling others of course, but you can't be an expert at everything and if someone is really good at a particular thing it's often because they have a passion for it, focusing a great deal of their time on it. If that area happens to be technical that means they have spent effort on it rather than most other on learning how to interact with others.
Sadly, people who devote most of their efforts at shaking the corporate tree do others fall off it are usually very good at interacting with others. Being effective at manipulating others sort of requires it. The worse of them, psychopaths, are well known for their superficial charm.
Time cures most things and in the end smart people learn the easiest path through life despite their obsession with other things. When it comes to interacting with others, that means learning to use words that engender cooperation rather than conflict. It appears Linus has reached this point. That he did is testament to just how good he is. Most of us can learn these things by watching our superiors over time. (If these people are good at their job, they will both be very good a getting people to work together and instilling it others.) Linus didn't have a corporate ethos he could learn from. He's had to invent it himself.
So we end up at the curious juncture were some introvert who spends all their time playing with things rather than people is likely to be a good asset to the organisation and if given time (decades) will learn how to interact well with others to. A psychopath on the other hand who is focused on human interactions and is really good at it, but if the firm is to survive should be excised at the earliest opportunity.
I dunno, Steve Jobs sure managed for a long time. I think they quite often end up being a net negative for the people who work there, but I don't think it necessarily hurts the organization (though maybe it should sometimes).
All successful organizations? Really? Definitely not hyperbole.
Even here it's clear that Linus hasn't been a net negative, not even close.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
Personally I take the anti-jerk sentiment with a grain of salt. People like you were probably just manhandled by one like ten years ago and still haven't let it go.
Like Apple?
That's why Linux usage and contributions have collapsed over the last 30 years.
One thing that is true in all successful organizations over time is that for any given person, no amount of genius will make up for being an asshole.
It may take time, etc, but eventually, it ends up a significant net negative for the organization.
The sooner folks are forced to deal with it, the better off the organization ends up in the long run.
It also turns out you can be effective at dealing with people and still be brilliant, and it usually doesn't take a lot more than spending more energy in being self aware and trying to see the perspectives of others.