Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Abuse is indefensible

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 221 posts

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#51

Post by GPGPU »

unfamiliar wrote: post #2

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…

> Does the gender issue really have to be shoehorned into every story?

Exactly right. I read that like and I lost interest in reading any more from this guy. Now he's trying to make a point about "sexism" by pulling a strawman out of thin air

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#52

Post by JustSomeNobody »

unfamiliar wrote: post #2

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…

My wife and I are both software engineers, so I'm particularly sensitive to this topic. However, this even through me for a loop as to why it was mentioned.

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#53

Post by forgotmypassw »

That's simply an expression to emphasise on current feelings and to add tone to the text. The rewritten text is clearly overly bland and on the edge of being apologic and doesn't reflect the anger and annoyance that Linus most likely felt at the time of writing the mail. It seems that people do not realize anymore that languages exist not only to pass the point along but also to express yourself (including emotions and feelings).

Further more I think that thanks to Linus being "abusive" it makes contributors think twice before they submit code and making sure the code is mostly valid, which in turn, results in higher quality code landing in the codebase and decreases the risk of potential bugs. Does that make some people "scared" of contributing? Sure but that's a whole different story.

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#54

Post by epaga »

jimbokun wrote: post #5

Can anyone defend Linus' version as better communication than Eisenberg's?

Not better communication per se, but Eisenberg's version completely lacked any communication of the strong emotions of anger and frustration Linus very clearly communicated in his version.

An addition I'd make to Eisenberg's version would be something along the lines of "To be honest, I'm extremely furious this kind of code was attempted to be submitted at all - these are basic issues that I expect everyone to adhere to. I don't want to see this kind of mistake again."

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#55

Post by eis »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #30
eis wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's no reason that anyone would need to be emotionally strong enough that in a company with adults in which the focus is working together on technology, they should expect to get sworn at a few times as an acceptable interaction with their peers.

They don't have to expect it or even accept it. They can, if they want to.

But they could as well just tell Linus he's a jerk. Or filter out the technical aspects of his post and ignore the rest. Or stop working with Linus.

But there is no reason to create a wide discussion around this, imho.

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#56

Post by marrs »

adamc wrote: post #16
shepik wrote: post #13

To be honest, Linus' rants is making a better point for me. I really feel his pain with overflow_usub, and i feel nothing when reading rewritten version.

Why on earth do I need to "feel his pain" rather than just understand the issues at hand?

Because people are emotional and we respond more acutely to emotion.

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#57

Post by x1024 »

kristiandupont wrote: post #40
x1024 wrote: post #7

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.

>pull that shit Right, in fact, if I were the developer who wrote that shit, I would probably think twice about doing any work on the code. Not because I was insulted but because I would be scared. I don't know about this specific situation and maybe it's political/religious. But maybe the girl/guy just wrote this code because they thought it was the best solution. Being screamed at by an authority like that (even if…

I would argue exactly that, yes. If you don't understand basic things about code clarity and safety, you're not ready.

The Linux Kernel doesn't exist to validate your opinion of yourself, but to literally support the world's software infrastructure. Which is more important.

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#58

Post by tptacek »

x1024 wrote: post #49
tptacek wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you (the person who wrote that this code would "ruin" the Linux kernel) explain in as much detail as you can how it would have ruined the Linux kernel? I'm curious about how much people take what Linus says at face value.

Code being safe or unsafe is a pretty objective metric of quality, methinks.

I agree. Can you explain how this particular code is "safe" or "unsafe"? Again: I'm curious as to how much of what Linus says is taken at face value on HN.

I'm even more interested now, because the fulcrum of Linus's argument isn't safety.

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#59

Post by huhtenberg »

jimbokun wrote: post #5

Can anyone defend Linus' version as better communication than Eisenberg's?

There's nothing to "defend". It's incomparably better, because it is strongly opinionated, and therefore makes anyone think twice before making similarly stupid changes in the future.

All those "the way I see it" and "I think" clauses in rewritten version is a false modesty, reeking of pretense and BS. There's also that closing "thank you" that is as disingenuous as it gets. That's just like thanking someone who just washed your car with a cloth full of sand. Yes, there was an effort involved, and the intent might've been good, but do they deserve a Thank You? No, of course, they don't.

Post reply on HN