this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024
1521 points (97.3% liked)
linuxmemes
21607 readers
1246 users here now
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
- Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
- Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
2. Be civil
- Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
- Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
- Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
- Bigotry will not be tolerated.
- These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
3. Post Linux-related content
- Including Unix and BSD.
- Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of
sudoin Windows. - No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
4. No recent reposts
- Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't fork-bomb your computer.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Potentially hot take: I wish that more free and open source project leaders had the same "no-bullshit" attitude as Torvalds. It's a great way to cull out entitled people who put their own feelings over actual contribution, thus having negative impact over the project.
And every single other alternative to this behaviour would lead to worse outcomes, either to the project or the patch submitter.
I don't disagree.
I just wished he stopped making it personal. There's a huge difference between calling a person stupid and shitty versus calling the implementation stupid and shitty.
He rants, points out the flaws, calls the contributor a moron, and you have to waits a few emails before Linus actually provides a teaching moment. That kinda sucks.
It really does drive people away. I'm not good enough for the kernel, but there's a project I could contribute to as part of my job but I don't because there are mean folks there. My first contribution there was met with cursing.
Second iteration of the same hot take: some people need to be driven away.
I'll use myself as an example. If I were to "contribute" with the kernel, any patch that I'd submit would have more holes than a sieve, more bugs than a jungle, and cause so much regression that you'd need to reinvent fire. I'd have a negative impact there.
The same applies to most other people. And most other projects, regardless of scope (i.e. this is not exclusive to the kernel development, or even programming).
Except that some of us don't quite get when we're a burden. "No! I want to contribute, thus I'm contributing! Reality bends to my GOOD INTENSHUNS!!1one". So they end wasting the time of people like Torvalds, who got better shit to do than telling them for the 500th time "your PR was not accepted because [reasons]".
Making it personal is usually a bit over the top, I agree. Still, the no-bullshit attitude itself is good.
Nah, smacks of insecurity IMO.
I honestly do not think that it smacks of insecurity. You can claim that it's rude, socially insensitive, perhaps even that it smacks of basement dwellers. But insecure? That sounds like assumption for me.
On the other hand, what does stink insecurity for me is the "I need to carefully pick words to avoid breaking someone else's feelings" attitude.
People the can't get their point across/accepted without belittling other people always come across as pretty insecure to me. "Do as I say or I'll shit all over you in front of everyone". It's like every bully trope ever.
Yeah you sound like one of those "I just say it like it is" types that never quite grasp that "how they see it" isn't the same as "how it is"
We're talking about real life, not fiction tropes.
Stick to the topic instead of assuming (making shit up) about whoever you're disagreeing with. The topic is Torvalds, not some muppet with a chimp avatar.
Lol, yep, bully tropes are based on real life bullies lol. I'm not assuming anything, I'm telling you how you come across, why are you getting all butt hurt and trying to control what I say?
Fiction cannot be used to gauge reality because what matters in fiction is not truth value, it's entertainment value.
That's doubly true for villain tropes (bullies are typically villains), since villains are usually assigned a lot of "random" behaviour, for no reason but to make their defeat extra cathartic.
If you want to actually argue that what Torvalds is doing is bully behaviour, you got to do it another way, because what you're doing now is as bloody stupid as confusing porn with real life sex.
Yes, you are being an assumer. And now a liar, too. I wasn't born yesterday, and I can easily see the implicature being conveyed by your "lol u sound liek".
And now you're being an assumer again. Worse: being an assumer towards things that you cannot reliably know, such as the emotional state of someone on the internet.
Stop wasting my time with off-topic shit that you make up. Unless you want both of us playing this game.
You're being utterly bizarre and seem to have confused the word trope to mean TV trope. What Torvalds does is literal bullying, he's literally been accused of literal bullying in the past and literally stepped away from Linux to work on it.
You now sound like a child.
Playing what game? Why are you so intent on controlling what I'm allowed to and not allowed to say?
Emphasis mine. For the third and last time,
stop assuming = making shit up
No, I am not confusing tropes with TV Tropes; I've linked TVTropes because it's a good resource to talk about tropes, a subject that YOU introduced through your idiotic "but bully tropes lol haha" reasoning, and it shows two things:
You're inadvertently proving why people like Torvalds chew some individuals out: because they don't learn with the carrot, you need to metaphorically bash their skulls with a 3m large stick, and unless you use the stick they'll keep doing the same sort of stupid shit over and over and over. Such as "i dun need to unrurrstand wut dis function does X-D I assooome its fine here lol!!@one lmao!11", or "I dunno things about ppl on teh inrurrnet but I can assooooome lol".
At least you're wasting the time of a nobody in Lemmy with your stupidity... or rather you were, as not even the nobody is willing to waste any time further with your blatant irrationality.
[If anyone else actually bothered to read what that assumer above wrote, and noticed something that is not completely garbage, feel free to point out.]
You think anyone's going to read any of this and think you sound like the rational one?
Looks like you have not been a part of any Linux community before 🤔...
What’s your opinion on this alternative verbiage?
It will fall on deaf ears
It's garbage.
My opinion is that it is:
Thanks for the detailed response. We’ll disagree on this.
Points 3 & 1 seem to contradict each other a little bit. The modified verbiage obfuscates the message in a way which only impedes understanding aiding growth but not understanding evoking drama?
RE: #2, your entire response was very polite. You could’ve got the same point across by calling the approach I demonstrated stupid. FWIW, I didn’t feel coddled by your lack of disrespect.
Any psychologists running studies and concluding the most abrasive critiques are most effective? Any schools teaching the Linus method?
I didn't call your approach stupid because I don't think that it's stupid, even if I disagree with it.
If the message wasn't delivered, there's a high chance of further interactions that might create drama in the future. The quote in the OP is an example of that - in the original context there's an "AGAIN" that shows that it was not the first time that Steven Rostedt submitted a patch with the exact same issue.
So I believe that, even if you might get less drama now because the message wasn't understood, you'll end getting it later anyway.
Also, Torvalds' message does promote growth, if read fully. Even with the "your code is garbage", he's still explaining:
atomic64_add_return()get_next_ino()and other VSF functionsit's just that the quote picks the spicy bit and leaves the boring carb behind.
Heaven help the community if “flawed & inefficient”, “poor practice…pattern” aren’t direct enough feedback! Linus’s style being an outlier suggests polite criticism is enough to make the world turn.
I think you could even simply replace capslock GARBAGE with capslock [FUNDAMENTALLY] FLAWED, leave the “AGAIN”, and it’d be OK if harsh.
Glad he did some teaching after the flaming in any case.
This was not directed towards the Linux community. It was directed towards a Google engineer. The community is the ones that you're indirectly proposing that deserve worse software for the sake of that part of Google's corporation.
And "worse" is not just a matter of "oh, I got a kernel panic. Damn. Reboot." It's actually serious shit; that kernel code will end being used in things from medical applications to sending Ingenuity to Mars. Worse code might literally mean "we detected your cancer too late, last time you were here the MRI wasn't working".
He is not even getting personal in this case dammit. I concede that getting personal (he does it sometimes) would be over-the-topic, but in this case he's insulting the code, not the person.
Torvalds' style is an outlier but so is the kernel. And the kernel being an outlier suggests that harsh criticism actually works.
Most of our [we = human beings, including you and me] production is garbage, even if acknowledging this offends our sensibilities.
It's almost like you guys [you + people across this thread] want to believe that only the carrot is effective. The stick is also effective, even if you don't want to believe that it is.
Dunno if you noticed, but this is actually ruder in hindsight.
And odds are that, if he did it the way that you're proposing, people would complain again that he's being rude, and expect him to mince words even further.
He did it before, during, and after bashing Rostedt.
There's many ways to point out the issues with the patch without being a jerk. The patch wouldn't have made it in either way, and maybe there could've been more useful conversations about the concerns (re: tar) that were brought up in the previous message.
Yes, if you don't mind pointing out again those exact same issues again, because the same person (or potentially someone else) did the same mistake again, as they failed to understand the gravity of the issue again. And again, again, again.
...or alternatively you give the person a good smacking. That's what Torvalds did, while pointing out those issues again. Carrot and stick
Likely not - that tar example was brought to highlight that Torvalds' suggestion would cause a regression; that's it. The discussion itself reached a dead end, the solution wouldn't be to keep the conversation about that, but someone submitting a patch that would neither cause said regression nor misuse the VSF functions.
I'll reply to myself to avoid editing the above (for transparency).
Linux users in this post: think on all issues that you had with your system. Bugs, papercuts, devs assuming use case, regressions (shit stopping working), dependency hell, anything. How many of those issues apply to the kernel, in a way that you can say "the kernel devs fucked it up"? For me, never.
I have a hypothesis, that I do not know the truth value of, that the kernel not annoying the shit out of us users is directly related to Torvalds' propensity to tell people "your code is GARBAGE", instead of sugar-coating it. And that free + open source projects where project leaders don't do this tend to be crappier. (Does anyone here know a good way to falsify this hypothesis?)
It's half this, and half an explicit policy "we do not break user space". Together it meant that if you did anything that screwed up the user space you got told about it at length.
Now Linux culture is established enough that it only really needs the policy, and not the cussing people out to enforce it.
Famous email about it here: https://linuxreviews.org/WE_DO_NOT_BREAK_USERSPACE
I wasn't aware of that email, only the quote itself.
...not gonna lie, I think that it was beautiful. I have my bones to pick with pulseaudio but come on, you don't shift blame like this, the guy deserved some smacking.
On-topic: I have my doubts if policy is enough to enforce it, or at least to enforce it in an efficient way.
Well this is it. What really enforces the policy is rejecting commits that break user space.
Now if you've got a large enough group of devs, rejecting commits is fine, but if you've only got a small group you need everyone to be working productively, and you can see why Linus ended up giving angry feedback about commits that were wasting everyone's time.