[dnlrn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTdUmlGxVo0

This is the talk you mean right? Have you actually seen the talk? Yes, Lennart interrupts the talk but everything he says is correct, while the presenter just spreads random FUD.

The presenter clearly shows that he doesn’t understand most of the stuff he talks about, talks about 3 year old bugs that already got fixed, etc.

Yes, it’s not the nicest way to interrupt a talk, but the presenter should have expected some kind of reaction, given the controversial headline.

People like Lennart put their heart into their software. If you shit all over it and spread random FUD, you can expect some response. What would you have done?

Also he doesn’t “take over the stage”. He comes up after the talk has ended, because people on IRC asked him to.

[enneff]

The way Lennart interacted with the speaker during that talk was extremely inappropriate. If he had corrections to make he could have arranged a short talk afterwards or a written blog post. It is very poor form to be so disruptive to a speaker, no matter how much you disagree with them.

[tinco]

No it isn't.. being on a soap box doesn't give you some special permission to just spread false information without being interrupted. I heard this argument before, there was an article about book reviews, and that authors who interacted with reviewers (by writing on their own blogs about them or on twitter) would be labeled Bad Behaving Author and be shunned by the review community. What's up with that?

If someone talks shit, he should be challenged as soon as possible, preferably in front of the same crowd they are talking shit in front of. If you take the opportunity to talk in front of a lot of people, you should also take the responsibility to be properly prepared, and be ready to face the consequence of not performing adequately.

[enneff]

> being on a soap box

Let's get this straight: he's not on a soap box (a term that refers to people who shout at passers by on the street), but rather at a conference at which he was invited to speak. The audience came into the room to hear him give his talk. Lennart rudely interrupted this.

> I heard this argument before, there was an article about book reviews, and that authors who interacted with reviewers (by writing on their own blogs about them or on twitter) would be labeled Bad Behaving Author and be shunned by the review community.

That's not my argument at all. I specifically suggested he _should_ respond with a blog post. Don't put me in the same group as those people. I encourage anyone to share their views on their own blogs, in comment sections, and on Twitter.

> If someone talks shit, he should be challenged as soon as possible, preferably in front of the same crowd they are talking shit in front of.

I disagree that it is appropriate to interrupt and shout someone down just because you think they are "talking shit". The definition of "talking shit" is subjective. If someone is interrupted before they can make their point, then the observer does not have the ability to judge whether they are right or wrong. It instead becomes a matter of whoever has the best rhetorical tactics. (Or who can shout the loudest.)

My job involves giving a lot of talks, and if someone were to engage with me like this I _would_ be prepared: I'd be prepared to tell them to wait until I have finished my talk and address their comments afterward. This has happened many times, and it worked out fine for all involved. It's called civility.

[LeonidasXIV]

> Let's get this straight: he's not on a soap box (a term that refers to people who shout at passers by on the street), but rather at a conference at which he was invited to speak. The audience came into the room to hear him give his talk. Lennart rudely interrupted this.

I was actually there and the talk was so much better for this. Also, I don't think the Chaos Communication Congress is that much like a business conference. It is hackers and people who care about software, not so much for proper manners.

If I remember correctly, Lennart specifically came to the congress because there were rumors before that this talk will be bashing Lennarts software, so it was no surprise to see him show up.

[enneff]

> It is hackers and people who care about software, not so much for proper manners.

IMO this is the attitude that encourages toxic behaviour in the open source community. Hackers should not be exempt from standards of civil discourse.