21–30 of 221 posts
Wasn't it throughly discussed, dissected, analysed and debated in that very recent topic?
The only new input this post beings is one more opinion among the many in that other HN post. Should it be considered a dupe?
I've read a few of Linus' rants and been on the fence, but this one does seem to have crossed some sort of line into being unnecessarily abusive, and to add to that, unclear communication. The rewritten version really does emphasise a much better approach. Linus's rant doesn't read like it was written by... a stable person. I was in full agreement with the article up until this: >Of the many things I could say about…
I thought that finally I can see example of Linus being abusive. This was not it. Linus was attacking the work and ideas and cursing them. He was not attacking the person who wrote the code. Cursing is not abusive by itself. Cursing is emotional emphasis. I would not want to work in a environment where strong emotional language used to criticize your work is considered abusive. If conflict over ideas and work does no…
But do you not feel offended when you are the one who came up with the idea?
Can anyone defend Linus' version as better communication than Eisenberg's?
Nobody will try to pull that shit again for quite some time. The "Constructive" version will be handwaved by submitting the same code again and giving literally any deflecting excuse like "You're just afraid of using new technology like this function.
Watch me! (not really, but if I wanted to troll Linus, rants like that would serve as encouragement)
Also using the compiler builtins is the most secure, most readable, least error-prone and fastest way of implementing overflow checks.
Can anyone defend Linus' version as better communication than Eisenberg's?
>In one of the talks by Linus he spoke of a developer who felt suicidal because Linus didn't want to include some work this particular dev had done. Linus didn't cut the shit short when he should have, he let it drag out too long, which is why he acts the way he does now. It's a defence for him and the developers in the community.
What is more, people remember abusive posts and will remember the mistakes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody will try to pull that shit again for quite some time. The "Constructive" version will be handwaved by submitting the same code again and giving literally any deflecting excuse like "You're just afraid of using new technology like this function.
>Nobody will try to pull that shit again for quite some time. Watch me! (not really, but if I wanted to troll Linus, rants like that would serve as encouragement) Also using the compiler builtins is the most secure, most readable, least error-prone and fastest way of implementing overflow checks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But do you not feel offended when you are the one who came up with the idea?
They... should be offended? Because it was a bad idea that ruins the Linux Kernel. Kernel development isn't for everyone.
I'm curious about how much people take what Linus says at face value.
I've read a few of Linus' rants and been on the fence, but this one does seem to have crossed some sort of line into being unnecessarily abusive, and to add to that, unclear communication. The rewritten version really does emphasise a much better approach. Linus's rant doesn't read like it was written by... a stable person. I was in full agreement with the article up until this: >Of the many things I could say about…
I had the same feeling about the last bit of the article. Drama for no reason. I would be glad if the tech community focused more on tech than on shitstorms. Some people are just too sensitive. If you don't like how Linus behaves, then don't deal with him. Noone forces you. But why post an article on your blog which is associated with Mozilla including a gist of collected swear words? At least Linus didn't engage in…