He's absolutely correct that everyone doesn't have to like and be able to work with everyone. All the people who continue to find ways to complain about his behavior just don't like him. OK. Fork the project.

See: OpenBSD and DragonflyBSD for domain examples of what to do when you have personality conflicts in an open source OS project.

The problem that you don't explicitly mention is that people see Linus behaving this way and feel it's acceptable, and they carry on that behaviour.

Some open source environments are toxic and horrible and it's hard to correct that when you have very public figures acting in that toxic horrible way.

Yes. Parts of the FOSS community have a culture that apologizes for jerky behavior.

>There are plenty of people who happily interact like this daily.

There are plenty of jerks, yes.

> I think it is reasonable for them to continue acting like themselves.

Being part of a team means accommodating your team members. We can argue what is a reasonable accommodation or what is not. But it's not too much to ask for Linus to stop typing in all caps, or accusing his team members of being morons.

> I don't find the way Linus writes offensive in the slightest. To me it is mildly amusing while making a point.

It's possible to be amusing and make a point without singling out a contributor for humiliation. Obviously, we have to be free to criticize other's work. But as the article shows, most of Linus's message isn't constructive criticism. It can be re-written to mean the same thing, yet preserve the dignity of the person he's criticizing.

We need people to contribute to open source projects. Being a jerk to others scares contributors away.

This is where the disconnect is, I think. You stated this very confidently, presumably because it seems obvious to you that everyone would feel this way. But let me assure you, there are few things I would enjoy more as a programmer than having Linus critique my code, including the parts where he swears at me and calls me a moron who shouldn't be allowed within 50 feet of a computer. I had a couple different professors whose feedback on my work was often Linus-esque, and that's part of the reason why they were some of my favorite teachers. I can also assure you I am very much not alone in feeling this way.

Now, this doesn't mean that allowing Linus style communication would be a good idea in most work environments and I wouldn't advocate for it, but your comment shows a pretty concerning lack of appreciation for the fact that a lot of people are wired very differently than you are.

Codes of conduct like the one being laid out in this article are often seen by people like me as tyrannical - behave and interact in the way that we personally like best, or be cast out. So naturally, I work as hard as I can to prevent them from being put in place, and undermine them if and when they are. An attempt by the "woke" crowd to meet us thicker skinned types (for lack of a better way to describe it) is something I'd welcome with open arms, but nobody seems much interested in that.

> There are plenty of open-source project leaders who deal with incorrigible people and do not talk this way.

And a lot of people who "do not talk this way" are a lot worse by dealing with these kind of issues through backstabbing or veiled insults.

While some are saint-like and never say or do a bad thing to contributors, I don't buy that the lack of abrasive language in any way is a reliable indicator of civility.

I have trouble understanding why it bothers people so much that Linus is rude sometimes. You don't have to interact with him if you don't want. You can even contribute to the kernel without interacting with him. Whatever he's been doing has been working for going on 3 decades now, I don't see a burning need to change it because it bothers some outsiders.

There's this weird sense of entitlement. People want to elbow their way into this long-running and successful project and start telling everybody how they ought to behave. They think they have the right to contribute on their own terms without bothering to understand the project culture, and think it's everybody else's responsibility to make things easy for them and behave in a way they approve of.

If you really think the LKML is too toxic and hostile, to the detriment of the project, then feel free to fork it and start up a parallel project without the problems you see. Surely your friendly corporate-style culture will attract more contributors and soon you'll have the more successful kernel, right?

Personally, I like having somebody in charge of the core of the OS who's so concerned with correctness and hygiene that he gets upset when they're violated.

There's a thicker-than-fine line between being hostile to new contributors and being unkind, and tolerating bad practices from people who ought to know better.

I don't see this particular rant in question to be a personal attack though. Personally, I don't see a macho, jockish atmosphere to the Linux kernel community either. Also, I'm also not particularly concerned whether an environment is cultivated where anyone feels they can contribute. People contribute to the kernel out of need as well as want.

To directly address the part of the comment about otherwise capable contributors (and the Sarah Sharp example): There's multiple kinds of capability. Technical capability isn't the be-all, end-all in this industry. In fact, I think most of us would say that soft-skills are what differentiate high levels of success in this career. If a company's management culture disagrees with you, then you aren't capable of contributing in that atmosphere.

It's not a matter of either party being to blame but a matter of fit between two parties working towards a mutual goal. I don't think it's remotely fair to say that it's solely Linus's responsibility to facilitate a culture where anyone can feel comfortable contributing. Especially with a project as fundamentally necessary where people will have to contribute, regardless of the culture. If someone's incompatibility with the culture trumps their need to work in it, then yes, they should part ways and that should be perfectly okay.

The same applies to personal relationships, marriages, etc. I think it's good to step back from things from time to time and realize that, ultimately, you're dealing with people and they're not always going to value what you value and they're not always going to give you what you want.

Linus is BDFL. That's all you need to know in four letters. Why are people trying to give ultimatums to God? Seems pointless.

I can somewhat justify using a very corrosive tone if you're not in a place of power and you want to be sure that you're not ignored (I'm not a fan of it but pragmatically it sometimes gets the job done). However it's clearly not the case here, he has the power to reject any contribution he doesn't fancy. And his developer clout is huge enough that he'd still be heard if he criticized third party projects he doesn't maintain.

From a purely pragmatic point of view I don't see what his corrosive tone gets him. Actually I can easily see what it cost him, some devs have resigned from their maintainer position in the Linux kernel and probably many more who gave up contributing at all because they were worried they were going to be shot in flight.

Somehow with this management style he has managed to produce the largest open source OS project in the wild... I agree with everyone doesnt need to be a dick just because linus is but we definitely cant claim this kind of approach cant work

His words shouldn't be taken too personally, just as getting bitten by a grizzly bear shouldn't be taken personal.

I've participated in a number of open source projects. I like to think that I've made useful suggestions and contributions, in addition to making dumb ones. When I make a dumb suggestion, I expect to corrected in a respectful way.

There have been cases where a project maintainer answered in an aggressive, passive aggressive or belittling way.

These kind of reactions stress me out, make me lose a night of sleep etc. I can handle a rejection on sound arguments, but I don't handle stress and confrontation well at all. I wish it were different, but that's just not the way I am.

They are sufficient to make me stop contributing to and leave a project.

A public rebuke by somebody like Linus is my worst nightmare, and I would never consider working on the Linux kernel because of them.

I image there are many more technically capable potential contributors out there who have the same reaction.

IMO it's important that a person can position themselves in a company so that they mostly communicate with colleagues who share communication style.

Anyway, Linus is known for his personality even outside Linux kernel development team, so I wonder whether this issue is blown out of proportion.

“maybe finding another hobby”

It’s very easy to sit here in our armchairs and go “yeah he should just abandon his project”. I’m not sure how any of us would react to one of our projects growing to the scale linux has, but blithely suggesting one should just swap careers or hobbies (since programming is -just- a hobby apparently) is not productive at all.

Even Linux admits his behaviour was unproductive and has apologised and improved his communication.

Personally, I think an expectation of a little professionalism from people is hardly "ever more delicate". Rather, it's people who feel entitled to spout any profanity or insult they want without reaction who seem unable to deal with the consequences of their actions.

> Otherwise, if a person is generally toxic enough, they will be worked around.

What you are describing is that if you are "valuable enough", you get to be toxic to people without consequence. That's a good way to breed toxicity.

There is this trope of the "genius asshole" who is too valuable to lose. I suspect that in a lot of cases these people are too valuable precisely because they drive away other contributors that would otherwise lead to a more healthy project.

> Unfortunately, some snowflakes like to believe that everyone contributes equally. That is simply not the case. And, in fact, some people contribute a _negative_ amount overall. Which is to say, the project is better off without their participation.

You intended this to support your argument, but it seems to undermine it. The odds are that one individual is going to contribute less than all the people they are likely to drive away with toxicity. Toxic developers are likely to be the net negative contributors as you describe.

It really seems like your whole argument is predicated on capability and toxicity being directly correlated, which in my experience—while something toxic people want to believe—is a nonsense excuse for enabling bad behaviour.

It does matter if it means otherwise qualified contributors stop contributing or, more likely, never attempt to contribute in the first place. Linus doesn't know how to act any other way, but that doesn't mean there aren't other ways to act that don't harm the overall success of the project but create a more welcoming atmosphere.

It's like he's trapped in this weird world where "being nice" is the alternative to being a temperamental jerk. How about being kind, patient, but forceful? Lots of technical leaders know how to strike this balance and Linux is worse of for Linus' inability to do so.

Blunt and direct are one thing. Needlessly personally offensive is another.

You are fine with people who act like this. You'd assume you deserved it or you'd even feel honored. You're entitled to feel that way.

Many others think there's no excuse for behaving in that way. We think it's destructive, and that Linus and Linux succeeded despite it. Many of us would never subject ourselves to such an environment.

I get disagreeing. But what is so perplexing about it?

I guess it's important to maintain a strong grip on the product when there are so many people touching the code, each one with different interests. But this kinds of attacks on (sometimes clueless) random would-be contributors just leaves me with a bad taste. And a community which is lead by someone who does this will only replicate that behavior.

I know I will probably never try and contribute anything to the kernel because of this toxicity; how many more people have taken this decision?

I agree that his brash tone, as portrayed on HN, is detrimental to the development of the Linux kernel. I would also posit to say that there would be many examples of him encouraging and helping kernel contributors, but they don't make good headlines.

I think that Greg Kroah-Hartman is actually doing a damn fine job as the stable branch maintainer, and anything Linus says should really just be taken as the passionate words of someone who doesn't want to see their creation diminished.