Yes, but the profanities make it so much better.

It's more colorful. It drives the point harder.

It's also more healthy and the evolutionary smart thing to do:

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/01/science-swearing...

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/science-sweari...

https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/swearing-is-surprisingly-go...

https://www.sciencealert.com/people-who-swearing-cursing-rud...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/smarter-living/the-case-f...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201205...

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/01/science-swearing...

Fuck yeah!

I will admit that I didn’t take the time to read through those articles, but I doubt any of them mention the positive effects of using profanity to deride others…

Because there has never been any positive effect from deriding others?

From social change (e.g. "look at these backwards bigots"), to running a tight crew ("wtf Kowalski, you stupid! You nearly got us all killed"), deriding others can just as well have positive effects.

Then there's the fact that some things naturally and inevitable deserve derision.

Not all ideas are derision proof.

Let's have Theranos or Fyre festival or non-vaccination as an example that we all agree on.

A healthy society should include a healthy dose of derision for derision worthy ideas.

(And if you think my argument above is stupid and deserves derision, then you've just made my point!)

And how and why exactly are those ways of providing feedback better than those with frequent profanities?

They are less likely to offend others and discourage people from contributing to the project.

>Of course, I'd also suggest that whoever was the genius who thought it

>was a good idea to read things ONE FCKING BYTE AT A TIME with system

>calls for each byte should be retroactively aborted. Who the fck does

>idiotic things like that? How did they noty die as babies, considering

>that they were likely too stupid to find a tit to suck on?

Surely there are better ways to express a point without going at great length attempting to offend someone else. If you believe this sort of abusive attitude is acceptable, then why shouldn't people provide feedback with their fists as well? It can carry a similar degree of persuasion.

>They are less likely to offend others and discourage people from contributing to the project.

What if the purpose is to discourage the people making those mistakes from contributing to the project?

It also dissuades other people who may not make mistakes from contributing. I’m certainly not getting involved with a community run by someone who mirrors past abuse I’ve experienced, for example.

Then it's an inefficient method to do so, because along with discouraging these particular people, it may also discourage many other productive and competent developers who don't wish to condone this sort of abusive leadership.

Perhaps the intention was to discourage the kind of people that are easily offended from such "abuse".

Unless there's some demonstrated correlation that this subset of people is likely to be less productive contributing to a project like Linux, then this would just be bad leadership on behalf of Linus who'd exclude potential contributors based on personal whims.

You might consider simply emailing back with "please don't make mistakes contributing to the project". That works really well with me and everyone else I know. I don't need to be bullied to be convinced.

Then that’s not a particularly nice thing to do. People naturally make mistakes, and I’m pretty sure that the consensus is that belittling them when they do doesn’t really help.

And there are condiments other than mustard. So what?

Some of them happen to achieve similar effects in a more pleasant way.

Your condiment preferences are subjective, and your campaigning against mustard threatens to make the world a blander place.