Abuse is indefensible • Hacker News Board

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#141

Post by nabla9 » Wed, Nov 04, 2015, 2:49 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #120

nabla9 wrote: post #6

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…

I think you might be confusing two different things. Is this the worst Linus rant ever? No. I think its virality is a bit inexplicable too. For a Linus rant, it is unusually focused on the code and not the upbringing of the authors of the code. It's weird that this is the one everyone's glomming onto; Gizmodo even ran a story headlined "you don't need to be a programmer to understand what this rant is about", but as…

See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10506823 I suspect that this is generational/cultural issue. Abusive is codified and differentiation between "abusive language" and actual abuse is lost from people.

>This clearly is abusive language, and would not be tolerated in most professional teams,

Assuming that some people can differentiate between "abusive language" and actual abuse, is it possible to have different work cultures? Some are more masculine and competitive, some are more feminine and people select the work environment they like.

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#142

Post by tptacek » Wed, Nov 04, 2015, 2:49 PM UTC

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #52

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.

Me too. Like, I think I agree with this post? But I'm not sure it's the best illustration of the phenomenon, or even a good one.

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#143

Post by byroot » Wed, Nov 04, 2015, 2:53 PM UTC

delinka wrote: post #124

arguseyes wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people on this planet can deal with opinions just fine. Case in point: the recipient of Linus' message. It only ever seems to be an issue for those entitled, self-absorbed Title IX crybabies for whom every opinion they disagree with is "literally rape". :-)

So you've stereotyped over three hundred million people to be "self-absorbed Title IX crybabies for whom every opinion they disagree with is 'literally rape'." I still don't see how this is relevant or contributes to the discussion.

I'm not the OP, and I think he makes a bad job at expressing his opinion being so confrontational and dismissive.

That being said I agree with his core point.

There is tons of things totally unacceptable in the US society that are just fine in other cultures, and US people tend to impose their moral view on other cultures.

One example that come back very often is Facebook "censorship" of "l'origine du monde": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/11461004/Face...

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#144

Post by uhny-uftz » Wed, Nov 04, 2015, 2:54 PM UTC

Methinks Linus needs to be heeding his own words:

As a reviewer of code, please strive to keep things civil and focused on the technical issues involved. We are all humans, and frustrations can be high on both sides of the process. Try to keep in mind the immortal words of Bill and Ted, "Be excellent to each other."

https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux....

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#145

Post by tptacek » Wed, Nov 04, 2015, 2:54 PM UTC

nabla9 wrote: post #141

tptacek wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you might be confusing two different things. Is this the worst Linus rant ever? No. I think its virality is a bit inexplicable too. For a Linus rant, it is unusually focused on the code and not the upbringing of the authors of the code. It's weird that this is the one everyone's glomming onto; Gizmodo even ran a story headlined "you don't need to be a programmer to understand what this rant is about", but as…

See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10506823 I suspect that this is generational/cultural issue. Abusive is codified and differentiation between "abusive language" and actual abuse is lost from people. >This clearly is abusive language, and would not be tolerated in most professional teams, Assuming that some people can differentiate between "abusive language" and actual abuse, is it possible t…

An argument over the semantics of the word "abuse" will be unproductive. It's just abusive in a technical sense.

I think on most well-managed teams in the US software industry, if you were a staff programmer, you could get away with a rant like this just once; you'd be warned, and if you did it again, you'd be dismissed.

Obviously, if you were the manager, you could rant like this as much as you wanted. But then that's the point, right? Even on a team managed by a raving asshole, if you were lower-status and tried to get away with a rant like this, you'd get in trouble.

I'm pretty sensitive to it because candidly it's a struggle for me not to be ranty like this particular Linus rant (thankfully, I am nowhere nearly as bad as the worst Linus rants) and I've had to work hard to suppress it.

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#146

Post by marrs » Wed, Nov 04, 2015, 2:56 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #139

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.

"We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it and stop there lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove lid again and that is well but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore." The lesson a lot of people are going to learn from this is, "Don't submit any code to Linux." Not submitting code like this is merely going to…

    The lesson a lot of people are going to learn from
    this is, "Don't submit any code to Linux."

That's true, but not really a problem. Linux is one of the most popular open source projects out there.

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#147

Post by cholantesh » Wed, Nov 04, 2015, 2:57 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #65

x1024 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They... should be offended? Because it was a bad idea that ruins the Linux Kernel. Kernel development isn't for everyone.

> Because it was a bad idea that ruins the Linux Kernel. 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.

I'd go even further - kernel development isn't just 'not for everyone', it's for very few. Relatively speaking, how many people are competent enough to contribute to the kernel? Those that even make the attempt are doing so voluntarily - if the reward from that is to be entreated with a hyperbolic rant, why would they bother going any further?

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#148

Post by x1024 » Wed, Nov 04, 2015, 2:58 PM UTC

So which is it? Does ranting have a huge impact that keeps people out, or does it "not have the power"? And if it's powerless, why are you so eager to censor it, then?

Also, why don't you keep in your lane and only oppress the Go community with your code of conduct? There's no need to also invade Linux.

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#149

Post by raverbashing » Wed, Nov 04, 2015, 3:02 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #138

raverbashing wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the original Linus email "And yes, you still could have overflow issues if the whole "hlen + xyz" expression overflows, but quite frankly, the "overflow_usub()" code had that too"

I'm afraid that doesn't clarify, because if the overflow_usub code is broken in that sense, then so is the code Linus is advocating for. Do you still think "broken" was the right word to use? Why?

I think there's also the issue of limited compiler support for that feature

Maybe broken is too strong a word I agree

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#150

Post by x1024 » Wed, Nov 04, 2015, 3:02 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #102

x1024 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are committing a logical fallacy. I'm not "the voice of HN", nor am I a representative sample of "what HN thinks". This is just my opinion. Using a builtin operation ("addition and comparison of integers") is always safer than using a function that may or may not work the same everywhere. I.e. a nonstandard function. Also, the proposed code has more levels of indirection, therefore places a higher cognitive load…

No, that's not what Linus is saying. It's close to the opposite of what he's saying (overflow_usub wraps a builtin). You obviously can't simply use the builtin addition and subtraction of unsigned integers in safe code, because in modern C, integers wrap. Returning to the thread: why are you so comfortable extrapolating from Linus's rant to "this code would ruin the Linux kernel"? You don't grok the code he's talking…

In the discussion Linus is providing his suggested code, which is literally "just a builtin addition", but your opinion is that "He says that you can't use builtin addition".

OK, sure.