Amazing.
The written equivalent of spittle-flecked screaming is neither professional nor constructive. Unless, of course, the goal is to hound someone out of the community and make others less likely to participate, in which case that was an excellent comment.
Take action (remove commit rights), message Mauro in private, call him and let him know you are disappointed and why, ... but having an ASCII-based temper just makes Linux and/or programming look silly. Kernel dev is rough but there is plenty of time to let things cool down and let rational criticism sink in.
I remember reading once an author who refused to e-mail or respond to e-mails, because he was concerned that every piece of text committed to a private commentary between him and another person would never have been published in a book, and will potentially even become a privileged (private) conversation, that nobody else can benefit from, ever.
There is an obvious difference in tone between the 'polite disappointment private note of passive-aggressivity' and the 'verbal ass-chewing' that you issue when someone 'breaks one of the rules'.
What happens when this person gets chewed out on a forum on the internet?
People talk about it. Word spreads. Now I know that linux kernel devs are not meant to introduce breaking changes into userland, because of the power of his words.
Would I have heard if he had chosen other routes? Isn't it possible that he can keep a (potentially) helpful developer on the staff (we try to keep them, especially when they are unpaid, since they are harder to come by) without permanently or temporarily revoking his commit access? I don't know if he still works on kernel, but don't you think he would have been more alienated by forcible removal from the working group, for any period of time?
If my boss tells me to take a vacation, I would get worried.
And I also know that Linus isn't a person with whom I'll never interact on purpose.
Some things are important enough to flame over. I grew up on IRC, so I have a thick skin to that, and I've been flamed on my fair share of mailing lists too. Know what I learned there? I'm often wrong.
To an outsider, a thread where nobody gets flamed is usually pretty inconsequential. Coarse or colorful language makes it stand out more.
We can do better than this.
I honestly haven't read the thread, I'm not defending his particular flame, I'm defending the idea of flames in general. I would assume from all the commentary I've seen though that (the target... Mario?) was defending his breaking change, "it's actually the userland software that's broken" and Linus wanted everyone to know that he was wrong, and there's no defense for breaking changes that affect userland stuff that "used to work."
Have you ever joined Exherbo community? I think it's more like what you want.
It's anything but User Hostile, but there's a mountain of documentation to read when you arrive, you're expected to have read every word _before_ you come to start asking questions, and when I say 'anything but user hostile', I'm not sure I am using the term correctly. It's not user friendly for noobs. It's almost hostile. They don't really curse at you like Linus, but you have to read, and you have to read lots.
I haven't used it in a while, but every time I've gone back after some months, I've found breaking changes or a brand new puzzle to get to first boot, that I couldn't work through without somebody's help. My rating, -1 would not ask for help again, better to live with a broken system that doesn't work until you can know what's wrong for yourself.
Anyway enough about Exherbo. Back to Linux, I was compiling kernels when I was 16 years old, I never joined the mailing list, and it was a good experience. Good old, reliable, make menuconfig. I attribute this to Linus, and Alan Cox, whose kernel patches I often tracked.
I haven't done that in a while, and I stopped keeping up. It didn't take long googling Alan Cox's name to find the words "castigate" and "quits linux development" in the same article. That makes me sad. So I'll concede that maybe you're right.
Verbally abuse him, obviously.