In both cases, the result doesn't seem to have hurt what matters: the project themselves and the utility they provide their users.

The goal of the projects isn't to protect tender egos. It's to get shit done and make the right decisions.

Linus answered one woman who'd criticized his behavior by noting that a key issue for him was making absolutely unambiguously clear how good or bad a given technical suggestion was. And he does that.

Here we go: https://plus.google.com/102150693225130002912

Because if you want me to "act professional," I can tell you that I'm not interested. I'm sitting in my home office wearing a bathrobe. The same way I'm not going to start wearing ties, I'm ALSO not going to buy into the fake politeness, the lying, the office politics and backstabbing, the passive aggressiveness, and the buzzwords. Because THAT is what "acting professionally" results in: people resort to all kinds of really nasty things because they are forced to act out their normal urges in unnatural ways.

As I commented at the time:

There's something to be said for being an equal-opportunity asshole, in a fair and balanced manner.

And in running the most effective, successful, beneficial, and largest OS development project the world has ever seen.

I see Linus's behavior as being an instance of Celine's Second Law:

Accurate communication is possible only in a non-punishing situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celine's_laws\#Celine.27s\_Sec...

"Huh?" you say?  But Linus is punishing communication.

No.  Linus is communicating.  He's expressing a clear view of what is or isn't valuable.  The punishment isn't in rating the quality of contributions to the kernel, or usefulness of others' participation in the LKML.  It's in criticizing the communications methods used to convey that feedback.

Yes, it may be insensitive.  But fuck sensitivity