[wnewman]

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".