Linus Torvalds in sweary rant about punctuation in kernel comments
theregister.co.ukEvery time Linus Torvalds' rude behavior comes up on HN, people leap to his defense. Then, people leap on top of those people for leaping to his defense. Personally, I fall strongly in the "he's rude and annoying and should stop it" camp. For the sake of productive discussion, I'd like to list a few things that are not valid defenses to his dickishness:
1) "He's a visionary developer." Yes, but plenty of visionaries are also friendly and polite. You can have a strong opinion and argue it strongly without descending into namecalling.
2) "He's built something millions use." That we live a world where having success allows you to be a jerk is a bug, not a feature. Respect for the Linux kernel would be respecting the people who work on it, which Linus rarely does.
3) "Kernel developers are used to this kind of behavior and can take it." That doesn't meant they ought to have to. And plenty of kernel developers have left. It feels like there's a big to-do about somebody retiring from the kernel once every couple of years, at least.
4) "It's his project and he can do what he wants with it." Maybe. It's largely the world's project now. But even if it were totally his, having the right to do something doesn't mean one ought to do something.
5) "You couldn't do it, so shut up and let Linus do his job." It's not, and has never been, about me.
I hope that by listing these, I can short-circuit some of the repetitive arguments on this topic... or at least confine them to one comment chain.
> 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.
> 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.
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/
I find I get more from what other people contribute if I focus on what they say and mean, rather than how they say it. For instance, a Japanese person is used to a hierarchy of polite and formal modes of addressing people, but their hierarchy doesn't apply where I come from, but that doesn't mean they don't have anything useful to say, so I struggle a bit to ignore the frills. That burden is on me.
Focus on the message, more or less polite doesn't really have to matter. When I try to do that myself, in reading what you say I realize you really say nothing to me (NOP!), it's all about how to say things. The facts you present (visionary developer, built something millions use, gets along with his cohort...) you yourself attempt to undermine.
But, do read this, it's a funny take on this type of debate (with permission of the author, Jeff Bigler, license to copy below):
| All people have a "tact filter", which applies tact in one direction to everything that passes through it. Most "normal people" have the tact filter positioned to apply tact in the outgoing direction. Thus whatever normal people say gets the appropriate amount of tact applied to it before they say it. This is because when they were growing up, their parents continually drilled into their heads statements like, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all!"
| "Nerds," on the other hand, have their tact filter positioned to apply tact in the incoming direction. Thus, whatever anyone says to them gets the appropriate amount of tact added when they hear it. This is because when nerds were growing up, they continually got picked on, and their parents continually drilled into their heads statements like, "They're just saying those mean things because they're jealous. They don't really mean it."
| When normal people talk to each other, both people usually apply the appropriate amount of tact to everything they say, and no one's feelings get hurt. When nerds talk to each other, both people usually apply the appropriate amount of tact to everything they hear, and no one's feelings get hurt. However, when normal people talk to nerds, the nerds often get frustrated because the normal people seem to be dodging the real issues and not saying what they really mean. Worse yet, when nerds talk to normal people, the normal people's feelings often get hurt because the nerds don't apply tact, assuming the normal person will take their blunt statements and apply whatever tact is necessary.
| So, nerds need to understand that normal people have to apply tact to everything they say; they become really uncomfortable if they can't do this. Normal people need to understand that despite the fact that nerds are usually tactless, things they say are almost never meant personally and shouldn't be taken that way. Both types of people need to be extra patient when dealing with someone whose tact filter is backwards relative to their own.
[Copyright © 1996, 2006 by Jeff Bigler. Permission is granted to redistribute this text in its entirety, provided that this copyright notice and either the URL for the page (http://www.mit.edu/~jcb/tact.html) or a link to it is included. All other rights reserved. ]
I think the burden is on both parties. I consider the goal of professional communication to be "exchange as much information as possible in a way that is understood by everyone." For example, in Torvalds' situation, he needs to convey to everyone "don't use these kinds of comment format, it really matters to me that you follow my rules on this" in the maximally efficient way.
I argue that the most efficient, productive way to do that is to go a neutral course: Say what you mean, but don't insult or harass someone while doing it.
Bigler's piece strikes me as true and accurate, but at the same time, doesn't imply that nerds communicate by saying "hey, fuck you asshole, here's the way to X Y Z!" That is, I take it to mean conversations flow like this:
Nerd A says: "Idea X"
Nerd B says: "Idea X isn't right and definitely won't work."
Nerd A heard: "Nerd B doesn't think Idea X is right or will work."
Normal person heard: "Nerd B thinks my ideas are stupid."
not like this:
Nerd A says: "Idea X"
Nerd B says: "Fuck you, that's stupid, how could you EVER think idea X was good?! You're an idiot."
In this case, I think both Nerd A and Normal Person would be insulted. The discourse has become unnecessarily and unproductively personal. That's what Linus is doing. There's a difference between "direct"/"blunt" and "rude"/"insulting."
an alternative way of looking at this kerfuffle every time it breaks out is the old Arab proverb, "dogs may bark but the caravan moves on" which I always take to mean, "others can be counted on to criticize, but doers keep doing".
Yes, sometimes there is a dog travelling with the caravan too :)
As in other controversial Linus-rants, I feel that, sure, some of his phrasing is gratuitous, but I prefer his brutal and thorough critiques to the way that some maintainers shut down issues with a smug and glib one-line statement. I didn't read the entire thread, just the single message in question, so I don't know if there's been a buildup (I mean, besides the many years Linus has spent as a developer) to this blowup. And I don't follow the mailing list so I don't know if Linus is half-jokingly playing into his pigeonhole of a reputation.
But I do respect that a developer who has created incalculable good for the world and is established enough to quit and live happily on a tropical island still gives a shit enough about things like readability to be irate about it, and to take the time to type out a "sweary" essay of examples and elaboration. Someone has to care, and I'm glad it's someone of his stature. I know I'm making an appeal to authority, but I tolerate a sweary rant from someone like Linus differently than from a middle manager who wants to be cock of the walk in office politics.
I really don't think this is an important topic and the article is of little substance with a fairly clickbaity image to top it all off. However, I do agree that the comment styles mentioned in the article that Torvalds supposedly dislikes are ugly. Code should look appealing when possible for sure, no reason to use those unbalanced comment styles.
To add to that the author really seems to have an axe to grind with Linus. The suggested read on "More from The Register" links, all accompanied by the same "Linux middle finger" or "Linux Nuttella" images:
> Linus Torvalds in sweary rant about punctuation in kernel comments: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/11/linus_torvalds_in_sw...
> Linus Torvalds releases Linux 4.6: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/16/linus_torvalds_relea...
An excerpt:
> Torvalds says "I'll start doing merge window pull requests for 4.7 starting tomorrow." Expect that release about two months from now, unless Linus takes a summer break or things go awry in some unpredicable fashion.*
> Linus Torvalds wavers, pauses - then gives the world Linux 4.5: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/15/linux_4_5_released/*
An excerpt:
> Linux often caters to esoteric tastes, which is why this time around Torvalds has seen fit to include code that does a better job handling PS/2 mice. For both of you still using those. *
> Latin-quoting Linus Torvalds plays God by not abusing mortals: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/06/latinquoting_linus_t...
> Linus Torvalds warns he's in no mood to be polite as Linux 4.2 drags: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/03/linus_torvalds_in_no... *
> Linux infosec outfit does a Torvalds, rageblocks innocent vuln spotter: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/27/linux_security_bug_r...
This one is not really about Linus. It sports the same "Linus making the middle finger" image anyway.
> Linus Torvalds fires off angry 'compiler-masturbation' rant: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/01/linus_torvalds_fires...
All those articles come from the same author: Simon Sharwood: http://www.theregister.co.uk/Author/2488
I'm not commenting on the content or the substance of the linked article, just pointing out an interesting pattern displayed by the author.
Here's a link to the full email: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/7/8/625
Reminds me a lot of that Silicon Valley episode where Richard broke up with his girl-friend because he preferred tabs whereas she preferred spaces.
I've never watched SV, but if he prefers tabs I'm surprised his girlfriend didn't break up with him first.
In the show Richard is billed as a compression guru - his startup is trying to market an impressive compression algorithm he developed.
His justification for tabs over spaces in the show was they require less bytes.
But the point of the scene was to highlight the sometimes pointless quibbling that programmers can engage in, and how far it can go.
Is Linus Torvalds rant pointless? I'm not informed enough to risk an opinion but I doubt the personal attacks, belittling and swearing are helping his case.
Smart girl. She dodged a bullet.
Actually, in the episode she was just as petty and smallminded as Richard wa--
Oh. You mean because of the thing. Right.
I feel it's a good development that we no longer hear about Linus so much--unlike in the 90s, when it seemed he was taken excessively seriously.
Lol I agree with Thorvalds' commenting style.
Ah yes, classic Torvalds. He's one of the old guard from back in the days of "if it was hard to write, it should be hard to understand", back when neckbeards took out their years of being tormented by the jocks in school on anyone new who dares to set foot in their digital playground.
I'd never work with Torvalds. I dislike bullies.
> "if it was hard to write, it should be hard to understand"
Isn't Torvalds doing just the contrary in this case? He advocates for easy to read and understand comments
> I dislike bullies
Torvalds doesn't display any bully-like behaviour here. One has to be careful when labelling.