There's being blunt, and there's abuse. Linus attacks code, not people. Maybe it's seems like a distinction without a difference, but Linus would say "stop submitting stupid patches," instead of "stop being stupid." Or maybe, "the quality of your patch is dumb" versus "you're dumb." But, I don't follow the LKML so maybe he does ad hominem attacks.

I do know he's mellowed over the years and the CoC was introduced after his daughter called him out about abusive behavior, and he seems to have listened to her. So you may be right: if the CoC had been introduced 20 years ago, maybe he'd have already been kicked out.

My final thought is that there's a bit of "rules for thee, not me." Linux can probably now survive without Linus, but he's still a guiding force and probably the foremost authority on the core kernel, and I have a hard time imagining his lieutenants kicking him out.

[–] FizzyOrange -3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

Linus attacks code, not people.

If I say "your code is garbage" would you really say I'm not attacking you? I don't think most people would accept that. The CoC mentions being welcoming, inclusive, respectful, empathetic, not insulting or attacking people or being unprofessional. Linus violates all of those! Of the 10 bullet points there he violates 6 of them!!

IMO this is a big issue with CoCs. They give cowardly justification for arbitrary dictatorial actions. It's much better to admit that it's a dictatorship.

I agree with the rest of your comment - it's clearly worth putting up with his arseholery given how important to the project he is.

[–] refalo 2 points 1 day ago

I've always said CoCs are often just a false flag used to handwave dictatorship behavior away while hiding behind colorful interpretations of subjective terminology.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)