(no title)
PaulCarrack | 1 year ago
In the end, it's the users that end up suffering. The guy (Hocko) kept making mistake after mistake and Kent struggled to get him to do anything remotely net positive with regard to the issues in that original thread.
I'm not arguing that what Kent did was right or wrong, but I would be curious to hear what other ways people work with remote developers who are awful, especially when they work for other companies. You can't just fire them, so I understand the frustration here.
jitl|1 year ago
And I would say on a whole his behavior after 2018 has been less rude although he is still quite frank when necessary. I think it’s a positive change.
I think Linus’s message from 2018 is good perspective here: when someone behaves in a way that harms the mission of the kernel it’s better to try to change that behavior at the expensive of that person’s contributions for a limited time, rather than having the bad behavior negatively impact all other contributors forever.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/16/167
KennyBlanken|1 year ago
One does not need to be abusive to "tell it like it is" (the most common phrase I heard people utter in defense of Linus's abhorrent behavior toward developers.)
Linus was a bully who let authoring the Linux kernel go to his head and inflate his ego.
Twirrim|1 year ago
> I'm not arguing that what Kent did was right or wrong, but I would be curious to hear what other ways people work with remote developers who are awful, especially when they work for other companies. You can't just fire them, so I understand the frustration here.
They absolutely can "fire" them, by making a decision not to accept any contribution from them.
RandomThoughts3|1 year ago
You are actually arguing that it was right.
> The guy (Hocko) kept making mistake after mistake and Kent struggled to get him to do anything remotely net positive
That’s not really an excuse for abuse. This kind of comment is why we need a CoC committee in the first place. There is something deeply wrong when community members openly state that insulting other people is ok because they are not productive.
> You can't just fire them, so I understand the frustration here.
You can and should just ignore them. It is not mandatory to engage with people you disagree with and find unproductive especially on the internet where filtering them out is not that difficult.
Less extreme but also working is to just engage them less often. If you slow down the conversation, there is less space for them to annoy you.
neycoda|1 year ago
Kent's comment is on the line, but it doesn't look abusive. Frankly I'm more curious about the assertions rather than the phrasing, which I think is only the offensive part.
Did Michal make mistake after mistake? Did he assert that crashes are better than error handling? Did his comments or actions logically lead to that happening? That does matter in system robustness.
It seems the meat of the statements Kent made were not explored, merely that he said them harshly. Holding back development because someone wouldn't apologize publicly seems pedantic. If Kent is being hyperbolic, ie inaccurate, that's the bigger concern.
uluyol|1 year ago
LtWorf|1 year ago
unsnap_biceps|1 year ago
https://www.theregister.com/2018/09/17/linus_torvalds_linux_...
Filligree|1 year ago
NewJazz|1 year ago