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

Linus on "acting professionally"

marc.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 505 posts

Re: Linus on "acting professionally"

#431

Post by subsection1h »

scrrr wrote: post #118

I'd rather have my feelings hurt in exchange for an honest opinion than to hear worthless words that sound nice. Always. And I'd always prefer a competent asshole boss to a friendly guy that doesn't know how to do his job. Personally, I think too much niceness and, by extension, political correctness is bad for honesty, truth, effectiveness and, ultimately, for culture. The culture in the office and the culture as a…

    I'd rather have my feelings hurt in exchange for an honest
    opinion than to hear worthless words that sound nice.
False dichotomy.

    And I'd always prefer a competent asshole boss to a friendly
    guy that doesn't know how to do his job.
False dichotomy.

Re: Linus on "acting professionally"

#432

Post by mpyne »

xradionut wrote: post #419
snowwrestler wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anyone who complains about language is implicitly saying they're unable to control themselves and how they react to words. The reality is that most people (probably even including you) cannot do this 100%. Total equanimity is something to strive for in our own lives, but it should not be a criteria by which we judge other people. And it should not be an excuse to be a jerk. One of the key insights of working togeth…

You should enlist in the military and see how well that works. :)

Well, that's just it. Equanimity in the face of psychological pressure is a valuable skill to have. But it is a skill, it's not free, and the military spends a lot of effort on weeding people out who cannot develop that skill by the end of basic, intermediate, and advanced training schools.

And for those of us on the outside, we wouldn't tell a random developer that he should crank out 40 push-ups to prove his worth, like we might in the military. In the military there is what we'd call a bona-fide occupational qualification behind assessing the psychological durability of recruits.

Is there such as bona-fide requirement to develop software patches? Should there be?

I'll give Linus a pass on this much; his behavior here is well within the norms of the Linux kernel development community and his own previous behavior. He's the Captain of that particular ship and he's not doing anything illegal, nor does he intend personal injury, so at some point it's easier to concede that he will run that ship the way he wants and put on asbestos underwear, than to try to change both his behavior and the resultant mailing list culture.

But I think it's important to keep in mind that his kind of behavior must be very much the exception to the rule for software development, open or otherwise. If you breed a culture of aggressiveness then you must be ready to handle the people you draw in from that. It works for the military, it seems to work for the LKML, but I would be hesitant to hold it up as a general model.

Re: Linus on "acting professionally"

#433

Post by Confusion »

riggins wrote: post #395
mpyne wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Words are just words. They merely convey the message. But the message itself can be harmful. Psychological abuse is just as real to the brain as physical abuse is to the skin and muscle beneath. If messages meant nothing then there would be no reason to talk about hate speech, sexually abusive speech, or the many, many other harmful messages people can and do convey to others. It's not my job to build an impenetrable…

we'll have to agree to disagree. The fundamental claim that I simply don't accept is that people can't handle words. I disagree. People have the capacity to handle anything that is said to them. Psychological abuse is just as real to the brain as physical abuse is to the skin and muscle beneath. a. I'm skeptical of this claim. Would like to see your source b. Only to the extent you allow it. That's one of the definin…

This response lacks empathy and imagination. Imagine being a child that for as long as he can remember has been told by his mother that he's worthless and that she should have had an abortion. You think that's 'not real' and that it only hurts 'to the extent he allows it'?

Not everyone has grown up in the enviable position of being strong-willed and independent of thought, especially considering societal expectations. Suggesting anyone can just 'grow a thick skin' is as silly as suggesting you can change your gender by willing it.

Re: Linus on "acting professionally"

#434

Post by Confusion »

columbo wrote: post #200

This is another great example of why you can't take successful people and distil them down to their base components and say "ah, this is what made him great!" I believe being a loud-abrasive-dictator works for Linus because he is famous for being a loud-abrasive-dictator. That's not important. What is important is the reader. Let's be clear on a few things #1 - Linus doesn't run a business. He's the kernel admin, he'…

My guess: if Linus would behave in a nicer, politer way, the Linux kernel would be much more awesome than it already is. Through his behavior and that of the people he has attracted (those that will deal with his shit and have a higher incidence of behaving in the same way), hundreds of would-be contributors have been annoyed, alienated and scared away.

If you questioned every developer on this planet, for every kernel contributor, on every level of expertise, there are two that simply wouldn't deal with his shit and have been lost. The Linux kernel could have been much better.

Re: Linus on "acting professionally"

#435

Post by doctorfoo »

sergiosgc wrote: post #406
doctorfoo wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your first statement totally, the difference is I would rate Linus' attitude, separate from his language, as unpleasant and unnecessarily aggressive. I don't like aggression in the workplace (or anywhere.) And I think that links into a comment above regarding women; in general women are less aggressive and so feel less at home in this industry. In general, in my opinion, etc, etc.

I don't buy into the view that women are less aggressive. IMO, they display a different kind of aggressiveness, somewhat less frontal but just as damaging. This may be a guy thing, and a clash in behaviour of the sexes. Guys are more prone to bursts of aggressiveness, gals more adept of moderate long term aggressive stances. Which one is more difficult to handle is largely a matter of opinion. Quick bursts are automa…

I would posit that aggression is generally unwarranted. I would consider aggression to be the non healthy alternative to, say, being matter of fact, blunt, terse, and other such ways of giving negative feedback without directly attacking the person.

I'm sure there's no perfect dividing line between non-aggressive/aggressive. But it's generally clear when something is nearer the extremes.

"Alice, that's completely wrong because X, this code needs to be rewritten from scratch following principle Y." "Bob, what is this retarded shit? You stupid fool, go RTFM and do it again."

Re: Linus on "acting professionally"

#436

Post by btilly »

riggins wrote: post #393
snowwrestler wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anyone who complains about language is implicitly saying they're unable to control themselves and how they react to words. The reality is that most people (probably even including you) cannot do this 100%. Total equanimity is something to strive for in our own lives, but it should not be a criteria by which we judge other people. And it should not be an excuse to be a jerk. One of the key insights of working togeth…

The reality is that most people (probably even including you) cannot do this 100%. All people definitely can do this. They just choose not to. I won't say that I always do, but I try to keep it mind. Its a lesson I really try to internalize. Try this thought experiment. Let's say I show up at your office with a duffel bag filled with $1M cash ... and I said to you, snowwrestler 'I'm now going to make a bunch of nasty…

All people definitely can do this. They just choose not to.

Wrong. The classic demonstration is Phineas Gage. A man who by all accounts had very good self-control until the day that an accident drove a railroad spike through his brain, taking out the frontal lobe that is responsible for said control. After that he lost control. Not through lack of will, but because of physical trauma. The same phenomena has been observed in lots of stroke victims.

Moving on, there are a ton of psychiatric conditions which are not even that rare that result in people who have hardwired reactions to words that are out of their conscious control. PTSD. Social anxiety. Manic-depression (at either extreme). And so on. These days we can map out how words get processed and see the short circuit that keeps the frontal lobe out of the loop. It isn't a question of willpower. We know how to treat these conditions and help people regain control. We don't do it by telling people to "try harder".

What about normal people? Well it has long been known that any normal person in the grip of strong emotion also loses control. It doesn't matter why they have the strong emotion - someone died, you were in a fight, etc - once you feel the emotion, you have no control. Furthermore every time we go through this pattern, we wind up laying a path that makes it easier to go through the pattern.

Afterwards it is easy for people to go through a thought experiment. Say, "I should have done this, said that, held my temper." Blame themselves. Promise they will do better But guess what? They are wrong. Next time they don't do better. Not because of lack of willpower (though that may be an issue), but because human brains don't work in the way we consciously think they work.

But note this is not just defeatism. Because it turns out that we can understand these classic patterns we have. And with understanding comes the ability to get better control. But not through having an iron will. Instead through having the self-awareness to know, "When I feel this and hold it in like that the next thing I know I lose control. So I need to pay attention to this early sign and walk away for 10 minutes, then come back and continue."

Re: Linus on "acting professionally"

#437

Post by wnewman »

skc wrote: post #245

I feel the people defending Linus are being a tad hypocritical. I feel as though because you like Linus or Linux, his behavior is effectively being excused. A thought experiment would be to replace "Linus" with someone you don't particularly care for and see if you don't wince just a bit.

Like? I think it's more nearly that serious programmers tend to be very impressed with Linus's results, and his critics have tried to attack him in ways that don't properly acknowledge that. If a critic had said upfront "I don't much care whether a project can build a useful piece of software, what I care about is that people don't lose their temper" then we'd agree to disagree. But instead the critics seem to be arguing that getting angry interferes with projects working well, for some value of "working well" presumably related to the stated purpose. Linux works awfully well...

I kinda like Linus, but I don't particularly care for most sports coaches. I don't follow any spectator sports, but even I know that a nontrivial fraction of highly successful sports coaches lose their temper. I think the people who are arguing for more restraint or care or kabuki wrapped around expression of justified anger should face some burden of proof to show that their way works better, rather than just demanding that organizations be run their way while implying that Linus's way works worse.

I think it's very important for a leader to make technical decisions correctly, including the technical decision whether something is screwed up enough to get angry about. (And my strong impression is that Linus is unusually good at this.) I have some preference for leaders trying to be careful and dispassionate and clear about expressing their anger (e.g., full sentences with constructs "this is unacceptable", followed any detail that might be needed to be easily understood). But judging by results, it's not clear that my preference works any better than Linus's. And in long-term interactions with serious people, any difference may naturally tend to be small: most conversations between people are more about "what does he really mean" than about what was literally said, and you can quickly learn if A generally means the same thing by "what the F*CK" as B means by "this is unacceptable".

Re: Linus on "acting professionally"

#438

Post by sergiosgc »

doctorfoo wrote: post #435
sergiosgc wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't buy into the view that women are less aggressive. IMO, they display a different kind of aggressiveness, somewhat less frontal but just as damaging. This may be a guy thing, and a clash in behaviour of the sexes. Guys are more prone to bursts of aggressiveness, gals more adept of moderate long term aggressive stances. Which one is more difficult to handle is largely a matter of opinion. Quick bursts are automa…

I would posit that aggression is generally unwarranted. I would consider aggression to be the non healthy alternative to, say, being matter of fact, blunt, terse, and other such ways of giving negative feedback without directly attacking the person. I'm sure there's no perfect dividing line between non-aggressive/aggressive. But it's generally clear when something is nearer the extremes. "Alice, that's completely wro…

Tomato tomahto. We're saying the same thing. Blunt, terse can easily be aggressive. Further, when immediate reaction is needed, an open critic to either behaviour or results(code) may be needed. This may be aggressive, but it gets the job done. If there is no Ill intention towards the other, if the aggression is objectively to get the job done, there's no harm. It leaves a sour taste, but no long lasting effects. Again, full circle, frontal aggressiveness with no grudges. No grudges is really important.

Re: Linus on "acting professionally"

#439

Post by protomyth »

jhspaybar wrote: post #332
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't know exactly what it is that he said that was offensive in private, but he's actually being pretty reasonable here. I think what's being discussed is Linus' reaction to someone's patch on the lkml a few days ago. https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/13/132 Here is a preview: >What the F*CK, guys? >This piece-of-shit commit is marked for stable, but you clearly never >even test-compiled it, did you?

Wow, I cannot tell you how many times I've wanted to say something similar in a code review but instead go with "hey, this looks a little funny, any ideas what you could do to clean it up?" Part of me does think its rude, the other part is jealous he can say it and I can't :)

Both are really not the response you want to give, but the one you gave probably would be less problematic and, if said coder was paying attention, might get the right response. Code reviews with folks who cannot take a hint were always the least fun experience. I was a TA during college, so at least I had some training. I often think seniors should have to do a formal code review with freshman just to get the vibe.

Re: Linus on "acting professionally"

#440

Post by metaphorm »

olalonde wrote: post #421
metaphorm wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you just don't get it. you're still stuck on the notion of "socially inacceptable behaviour". the whole point here is that the standard by which you judge "socially acceptable" is broken and detrimental to the community. Linus behavior is socially acceptable. He is honest, passionate, says what he means, and most importantly, he is forgiving and doesn't hold grudges. The type of behavior that Linus is railing against…

This is a false dichotomy. There's a happy middle ground between being rude and playing insipid office politics. It's called politeness and doesn't have to make communications less effective or less honest.

its not a false dichotomy. sometimes tone IS content. if a person did something that you consider to be such a bad error that you wish them to hear your deep concern/annoyance then it is correct to be "rude", or rather to use harsh language and avoid sugar coating. Linus exemplifies this style of communication.
Post reply on HN