641–650 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is, it's just a different phrasing. I think you're reading more into "brutal" than blazespin intended. You might be more correct in your interpretation, but I'm pretty sure they just meant "blunt", not "vicious".
Then here's some bluntness: People who don't mean "brutal" shouldn't use the word "brutal".
Seems fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there's a delicate way to be both "firm" and "polite" - and that's to not be pretend to be "agreeable", but rather to separate the firmness on technical issues from politeness on personal description. That is, to say "this code is awful" while also a) going out of your way to praise the things co-workers/subordinates do well, and b) when it is appropriate to make general judgments on their performance, make i…
Much modern management theory recommends against the praise-criticize-praise format, FWIW -- I noticed this while I was taking a required management course at the Mouse. Everyone knows what it is, so you wind up dissipating the value of the praise because it feels like something that you're just saying for the sake of the formula. This comment is fairly irrelevant to the topic at hand.
What is recommended by modern management theory instead?
Newton was an asshole too. The whole "apple fell on his head" story came about because he was so mean to people. I won't say that most geniuses are inempathetic, but many are. Einstein wasn't, some say Gauss was. Beethoven was. Linus is. And we'll accept Linus's attitude for being an aversion to bullshit, just the quality that we need in a kernel maintainer. I'm glad to see that Linus finally realizes that he has a p…
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newto...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I totally agree with this. I actually quit my job at Red Hat because of the culture of non-criticism. I kept getting in trouble for pushing back against stupid decisions, even though I never insulted a single person. For example: When the design team added 10MB of web fonts to the app, I said something like, "Users don't care whether the font is Open Sans or Arial. They care whether things load quickly and don't re-f…
CoreOS was acquired several months ago. You feel you were able to accurately understand the culture of a corporation attempting to bring in CoreOS to the fold that quickly? And you are confused why co-workers would be less than pleased with public condemnation about a corporate project from someone who joined as an acquisition barely any time ago? If you truly can't put yourself in other's shoes and understand why th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps you might prefer open debate or critique, but I think most people would prefer that negative speech not occur in public. I think even politely negotiated debates can end up looking embarrassing if other people who are watching can form a justifiably negative narrative. When people are having a discussion in a visible business setting, to some degree, the precise words being spoken by either party become less…
Let me put this another way: Abusive people are always, without fail, at their ugliest when there are no witnesses and they have plausible deniability. I'm aware that dressing someone down in public has its own problems.
The actual suggestion was for all one on one interaction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ”I'll take an asshole over a pushover any day“ This is a false dichotomy. There’s no need to be an asshole to not be a pushover.
Actually, it isn't. For example in today's environment when someone suggests something stupid, it is no longer acceptable to say "this seems stupid to me" because it might hurt someone's feelings. So instead you walk it back and say things diplomatically (which is a tiny form of a white lie). Then people reply to your diplomatic statement with another diplomatic statement, and pretty soon nobody is saying the thing t…
But I'm sorry you are dealing with an unhealthy culture where "politeness and respect" require you to walk on egg shells. To my mind, that's not what should be happening.
I talk to my sons at times about the following idea:
I say "chair" and maybe my mind conjures up a wooden kitchen chair and the person I am speaking with envisions an overstuffed living room chair. Then we start to argue because we aren't even really talking about the same thing, but we think we are because we don't realize the word "chair" means something so different to each of us.
So I will suggest that some people here have experienced environments where communicating clearly was not "asshole" behavior and others have not experienced that. Such people can be equally convinced they are correct and failing to understand they really aren't talking about the same thing.
Growing up, I hated pineapple. But I had never had anything but canned pineapple and it was awful. While living on the West Coast, I began eating fresh pineapple, not canned. And it's incredible.
Sometimes, it's a bit like people are arguing about whether pineapple is wonderful or awful and not realizing that one party has only ever had canned pineapple and the other has only ever had fresh pineapple and neither side ever thinks to specify that detail because it seems like a given.
1. "[something] was Not OK"
2. An apology to "people who were hurt by my behaviour"
3. "I'm going to get outside help to learn how to be better"
etc etc etc
Basically all the hallmarks of American PC overly sensitive culture that ruin excellent organisations or products because of weak-minded, mediocre nobodies.
Here's hoping Linus comes back fired up. He (and the rest of you lot) cannot let useless people dictate the direction of important projects and organisations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who has been lynched because of a Contributor Covenant, or other similar open-source code of conduct? edit: You assert that "morality should come from within", though I'm assuming you're OK with projects and teams not reinventing things like PEP8 or language/framework best practices. But then you complain about manifestos "mutating". Isn't mutation a consequence -- many would describe it a desired feature, i.e. itera…
> Who has been lynched because of a Contributor Covenant, or other similar open-source code of conduct? The scope of the Contributor Covenant was widened in an attempt to l̶y̶n̶c̶h̶ harass and ban Elia Schito for an opinion he had expressed on his personal twitter[1]. Because Elia's twitter conversation wasn't connected with the project (beyond the project being listed in his bio), a new clause needed to be added to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have to wonder if Linux would even be remembered other than as a footnote at this time without his forceful personality being in the mix. Many things fail when they get pecked to death by ducks. His forceful personality carried the day on many occasions.
Or maybe his brashness was irrelevant. What would Steve Jobs have been known for if not for his turtleneck? /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> people who are able to accomplish their goals by rallying others to their cause. Like Linus.
Is anyone really rallied to the cause by Linus himself? I think the product is the only real draw. With the exception of a select few that simply want to work with someone as high profile and legendary as Linus.
They not only slow down the progress of a project by often causing unneeded busywork, from simply not halting bad ideas, they often slow my learning progress down by not telling me I’m wrong.
If you see something stupid, call it out. If I’m doing something stupid or say something wrong, call me out!
There’s obviously a happy medium somewhere in there, and Linus isn’t it, but I would much prefer working with a Linus than someone polite. From the history I’ve read, he’s not holding grudges, or necessarily attacking people, he’s attacking dumb approaches and ideas, which happen to be authored by people. At least that’s how I’ve always interpreted his rants.