[bigcorp-slave]

Hot take: why do we still care? Linus says something negative about something, big shocker.

This is just the tech crowd equivalent of a tabloid at the supermarket checkout isle, Tom Cruise is secretly a ferret-lover, read all about Bob’s torrid affair with Mallory!

[Zababa]

I think it's another proof that he has improved. Sure he uses strong language against the problem, but he's clear with what's wrong and why, and how to improve it.

[TameAntelope]

My concern is that tomorrow, I'll have to deal with one of the junior devs bringing up Linus Torvalds' comment as the starting point for a suggestion we leave GitHub, which ends up being a lot of work for no material gain for my org.

Torvalds isn't wrong, and I'm almost certain he didn't mean, "...and therefore everyone should quit GitHub immediately." but people will interpret it that way. And on the off chance he did mean for everyone to quit GitHub, he's then ignoring a cornucopia of value that GitHub provides unrelated to his expertise as the creator of git, which I don't think he's arrogant enough to do, anymore.

[dogleash]

>My concern is that tomorrow, I'll have to deal with one of the junior devs bringing up Linus Torvalds' comment as the starting point for a suggestion we leave GitHub

What would you rather see? That he just avoid expressing any opinion that might make people question your status-quo? Muddy his own message by weighing down his emails with hedging and qualifying statements that are - at best - superfluous to his target audience?

I'd love it if one of my juniors was tuned in enough to read this and realize there is more to git than github. And maybe they even start learning how to use that tool beyond the lowest common denominator of git knowledge that most people skate by with.

Of course it might mean steering them away from a rash decisions like misinterpreting this email, or wanting to leave github just because someone pointed out it wasn't perfect. But that's what makes them junior. It's my job to make them better than that.

>which ends up being a lot of work for no material gain for my org.

If you would just paternalistically tell them no, or would give a mentoring answer but don't see the value in that, then there is a workplace problem to address. Either you're hiring too junior for what you're willing to support on the team, or you need to reconsider your role within the team.

[easton]

Then you point at the line before his statement that says “GitHub does a lot of things well…”, and say that you use the tool that best fits your development process, which is GitHub. The kernel uses a different development process which requires all of the information about a change to come from the commit message, making GitHub’s merge messages which rely on having access to other tools besides Git useless.

[908B64B197]

> I'll have to deal with one of the junior devs bringing up Linus Torvalds' comment as the starting point for a suggestion we leave GitHub

If he can roll out a kernel and distributed version control system, listen to him. Otherwise, it's time to have the talk about cargo culting.

[Arisaka1]

It blows my mind how one of the most influential software engineers, creator of linux and git, is reduced to "just a famous person like Tom Cruise who constantly negative" as if he's actually enjoying it or worse, that we shouldn't take what he has to share into consideration because he's used to express his viewpoint.

Maybe Torvalds is just as positive as he is negative and the whole reason why you think that he's someone who's "unsurprisingly negative" is because that's the content that everyone is passing around. If this was just another of his normal comments you wouldn't even see it posted.

[lr4444lr]

Because he has the street cred to not be diplomatic or political about an opinion. Agree with him or not, he conveys an idea about tech that draws from an incredible intuition and experience, each building on the next and showing an evolution of his thought. He doesn't worry about being "cancelled" and obscure down things with defensive caveats, or being shunned for liking some unpopular concept.

[Sharlin]

He also friggin’ wrote git. If there’s anything he’s allowed to have strong opinions on, it’s git (and Linux, obviously).

[yoavm]

If the news were that Linus was ferret-lover, no one would care. But Linus knows a thing or two about managing the Git workflow of a pretty large project, and he created Git, so I'd give him some (a lot of) credit.

[heisenbit]

Architects shape often by saying no and the architecture of Linux and it‘s ecosystem is paramount to the tech industry. So we listen to when Linus loudly says no…

[lopatin]

Because it's fun

[chrisseaton]

That's the biggest thing to learn from bullies like Linus - he hates everything and thinks everyone's an idiot, so where does he go when he actually needs to express something strongly? He can't go anywhere. It's not an effective way to communicate.

[Dylan16807]

> That's the biggest thing to learn from bullies like Linus - he hates everything and thinks everyone's an idiot, so where does he go when he actually needs to express something strongly?

When he has a list of complaints, that is his strong reaction. And why would he need to go stronger?

[6510]

I wouldn't dare say we should go back to it but it is how many use to communicate long ago. The mechanism is simple, if you deliver anything yourself you must live up to your own expectations. The louder you moan about everything the more harshly we should examine your stuff. You cant complaint when people ridicule or critique your software if you do it yourself all the time: You've openly invited it!

And yeah, it was more effective. You just have to remember the topic is your code not your person - they are 2 entirely different things. i.e. Brendan Eich is a wizard but javascript started out as a smoking pile of shit.

In The graphing calculator story Ron Avitzur mentioned the other devs saying "It doesn't even suck" which was the highest possible praise.