Hacker News Reader

Comment by stephenr | Hacker News Reader

...and it worked. The replies that follow admit some error on their part and identify steps they are/have tak(ing)(en) to prevent it happening again.

What's with the obsession with his process?

View on HN

Because that style has a cost: it drives away people who don't like being called a fucking motherfucker on a public mailing list (at least, that's how Google Translate translated his comment).

Perhaps the benefit (fewer commits like this) is worth the cost. I suspect it is.

Read it again. He doesn't call anyone any names. All his ire is directed at the commit.

"Read it again. He doesn't call anyone any names."

Yes he does:

"now I'll have to call you perkeleen vittupää"

And according to other comments in this thread, it is apparently quite a foul moniker.

This sort of management style has been lauded on HN ("It worked for Jobs!"), but I have to agree with foobarbazqux's comment[1]; I just don't understand why folks are so eager to not only overlook, but to praise this sort of behvior.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6050411

Possibly because some people (myself included) would actually volunteer to work under someone like this--because "caring enough about the product to get angry" is actually a useful quality in a leader, if you believe in the product and want it to succeed (rather than just being there to make your pay and not make waves.)

Of course, if he also gets angry about not-the-product, he might be horrible to work with--but I've never seen this to be the case; Linus seems like a genuinely nice guy in every other situation.

I also quite like the bluntness in that it is very clear what his opinion is, I can easily understand where and how I went wrong and actively work to correct this.

> He doesn't call anyone any names.

"perkeleen vittupää"

> All his ire is directed at the commit.

If you made me dinner and I told you over and over that it tasted like crap, I would be attacking you, not the dinner. Plus there's this:

"you clearly never even test-compiled it, did you? ...I don't see how you could have avoided this honking huge warning otherwise."

You are not your productions, and you are not your creators (parents.) Criticism of what you've come from or what you've produced needs to be taken objectively if you wish to self-improve.

That never works, not just for programmers. But for any profession on earth.

People don't work like a fixed programmed rule engine. In the real world people have emotions.

Anyone who says 'real world' needs to be shot. Seriously. Emotions are mostly weaknesses in the professional ecosphere. Emoting to guilt co-workers into feeling sorry about criticism is unprofessional. There's a reason why sociopaths can thrive in power positions, they get stuff down without the drivel.

"you are not your code"

an important lesson, learn it fast.

Because a bunch of people in this industry try to emulate this style because it's "truer" to their style (read: they can't be bothered to actually try and be civil).

But whereas for most people this is "throw out all unfiltered thoughts, mixing the issue and the person". Linus' style is a lot more deliberate, where by using this direct style to really concentrate on the issue, and get rid of any illusion of passive-agressiveness towards the person.

I think he puts a lot more effort into these than he puts on, and is very aware of how it'll be interpreted. If you want to emulate this style, you have to think about this sort of thing as well.

It's not about being unfiltered, it's about filtering what's actually harmful (personal attacks) instead of what isn't really (your position).

I can tell you a billion different ways that would work too and in which most of them you won't like what happened at all. It's not because it worked that it's a good way.

The direct results are not the only things that matters, there's multiples indirect result that are not that great either. Psychological abuse is not acceptable.

You can achieve the same result without these verbal aggression.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com