Conversely, an average OSS developer will drive people away with this attitude unless the benefit of working with him is so attractive that it outweighs the pain of abuse (in which case he's probably not 'average' at all).
Assholes who really deliver get a pass from (some of) the world. Doesn't mean that you can get their results by being an asshole.
And those aspects of his personality would be exaggerated by the level of communication and questions and input that he's come to receive over the years.
Doesn't make it 'right', or 'kind', but I suppose it gets things done.
See the amount of developer churn in the *BSDs and some of the Linux DE projects.
Would we have had Linux on the desktop much earlier if developers used the robustness principle in communicating with their colleagues?
Linus is absolutely right that in the professional sense the same behavior simply moves to the shadows. By being professional we vent the same feelings in hushed murmurs and ever-so-gentle sideband criticism.
Actually, expecting a moderate appreciation of effort isn't by any stretch of the imagination "social expectation". Calling my code shit because it doesn't compile is fine but repeatedly doing so and getting away can only be interpreted as a power play - the very act of using your influence as a leverage to bring your subjective opinion to professional relations.
Last time I checked there was an industry who paid dearly for people skills. Just not software - because it doesn't matter. THAT'S the social construct - that it's ok to be tech-savvy and lack social skills.
And what is repeatedly submitting code that doesn't compile (wasting many people's time)?
In this situation Linus absolutely and quite rightly holds 99% of the power, and my point was that the social obligation trump card is being played as a way of trying to equalize the field, and it just isn't useful or valuable in this scenario (the other poster quite rightly points out that social graces are the rule when dealing outside of a particular group -- mostly when you're trying to curry favour -- which of course is true).
There is recurring sentiment that Linus needs to soothe all egos and comfort all comers because every submission is a selfless act of heroics that Linux desperately needs. We all know that isn't true: People want their contribs accepted into the kernel because such is a great professional accomplishment. A part of that accomplishment is making it past Linus, and if you can't then try harder next time.
Also, just because trash code that doesn't compile is bad (because it is, no denying it) doesn't mean that we can justify every behavior that will get generated, right? If there are incompetent people who don't double-check what they're doing, they should take a KICK. He'll save both himself from the trouble of having to repeatedly call out other people's sheer incompetence and the project.
Yeah, control about being a decent human being, if anything, but not about what goes into the kernel. So what's your point?
And how is talking about "thin skin" not also an attempt at controlling people, in the opposite direction? Pah.
Linus doesn't have to be put in his place, and if you don't like that tough luck.
Linus is put into place, every day, every minute, by people being even more blunt about even harder stuff while remaining respectful. Just like a turtle is put in its place by a fox. And if you don't like that on behalf of Linus, well.
This is a hugely astute observation. I agree with it wholly.
and the judgment of behavior -- the social expectations -- is absolutely a thinly-veiled tactic of control.
However this is slightly troubling, depending on who is being addressed.
In the court of public opinion, this "social expectations is a thinly-veiled tactic of control" will never fly.
Even in these post-formal-etiquette times.
Without implying too much, I'd say that this is partly the reason that programmers (or the technology set at large) cannot appeal to the sentiments of the society.
That is partly the reason why industry lobby groups have a tough time communicating the general appeals of technology firms on Capitol Hill.
Sensible thinking would suggest that these manner of affairs, while seemingly harmless within technology circles, doesn't help anyone's cause when the support of the larger public and/or governmental agencies and courts is needed.
The problem that you don't explicitly mention is that people see Linus behaving this way and feel it's acceptable, and they carry on that behaviour.
Some open source environments are toxic and horrible and it's hard to correct that when you have very public figures acting in that toxic horrible way.