61–70 of 221 posts
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…
The post raises the question as to whether passive aggression or active aggression is the worse offender.
Why is it that people who support Linus' tirades and mention freedom of speech, etc get so incredibly hurt when others exercise their own freedom of speech and point out how abusive they are?
That's a fundamental difference.
If they get hurt (big "if"), then they are still not saying "and that means you are not allowed to talk".
Are you seeing an inconsistency that I'm not?
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.
That seems a bit hyperbolic.
> Kernel development isn't for everyone.
Very little is "for everyone". That's not an excuse to offer criticism in a nasty manner. The article links to a nicer response that's a) shorter and b) a lot more likely to educate and build up a better contributor.
Linus doesn't deserve to be in his position. Technical merit doesn't excuse being a horrible manager of people.
What exactly do you mean by "in his position"?
It's his project that he started years ago. His participation is likened to a monarchy, not a democracy. His further involvement is, therefore, not something that can be decided by an election.
He doesn't deserve to be in his position with respect to a project he started and owns? That doesn't make any damn sense.
Do those who claim to desire civility not understand that by hounding and inundating him and the community in general with the same talking points ad infinitum, they are themselves being uncivil? Not only by the unrelenting and hostile complaining, though. They have gone much further; Eric S. Raymond alleged yesterday that feminist groups have been repeatedly attempting to frame him for sexual assault! http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6907 The OP post title is applicable to this situation in my opinion.
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?
I would be extremely motivated to prove Linus wrong. If I would realize I was wrong, I would lick my wounds and be hurt. The hurt felt would be related to the amount of work and effort I would have invested. I would not claim that Linus is responsible for my emotional state. I was challenged and I lost.
Identifying with your ideas is fine in moderation but taking lasting personal offense is when your ideas forcefully rejected is madness.
If US-Americans could just for a moment stop trying to impose their "culture" on everyone else, that would be nice. Oh, right, they can't.