| > I fall strongly in the "he's rude and annoying That's your opinion, which is fine, but remember that other people may have their own opinions. > and should stop it" I think he's handled many situations very well. Mr. Torvalds only uses this type of language after a problem has persisted for a long time, usually after repeated attempts (either directly or through his "lieutenants") to fix the problem. If the polite nudges don't work, stronger language can be necessary. There is a difference between careful use of strong language to make a specific point, and a personal attack or continuing grudge. Mr. Torvalds has always had strict standards for code formatting because mix-styles eventually becomes a mess that is harder to maintain. Attacking the coding style is good management. It's cherry-picking to pull the one swear word he used. > rude behavior Sometimes strong language caries meaning. Cultural differences can make this a bit of a gray area, but in this case, a minor use of strong language was very effective at conveying just how bad those comment styles are for the long-term maintenance of the kernel. It's slightly too long to include here directly, but please read this short work (poem? blank verse?), "How a plan becomes policy". http://ogun.stanford.edu/~bnayfeh/plan.html I'm not trying to justify arbitrary use of swearing or other rudeness. I'm suggesting that strong language is data which is foolish to ignore if it's used carefully. > [items 1-5] Most of these seem to be projection, not actual arguments that are used in the defense of the language. |
That's not true. See for instance this message [1] and its follow-up email [2]. My reading of that example is that the person Linus is yelling at didn't even know there was an issue until the yelling started. That's not appropriate behavior.
> There is a difference between careful use of strong language to make a specific point, and a personal attack or continuing grudge.
Yes, and conduct like what's said in the article, and mentioned above, and countless other examples, fall on the personal attack side of the line.
> Sometimes strong language caries meaning. Cultural differences can make this a bit of a gray area, but in this case, a minor use of strong language was very effective at conveying just how bad those comment styles are for the long-term maintenance of the kernel.
In this case I suppose you could argue that it is minor. In many cases it is not. Yes, strong language carries meaning, but I think we disagree about what that meaning is. Plus, you can have strong language without being insulting or cussing someone out.
But even so, do you really think anybody would have ignored Linus if he'd said "this is the comment style I want for kernel code, and I expect you all to abide by that requirement"?
> I'm suggesting that strong language is data which is foolish to ignore if it's used carefully.
It's not being used carefully. It's being used aggressively and in a personal manner. Linus himself has admitted this. [3]
[1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=136157944603147&w=2
[2] http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=136158011003318&w=2
[3] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/07/passion_of_torvalds/