Flaming is a big part of the problem

> Among other things: "flaming is accepted as a key means of developing a
> reputation".
>
> What?
>
> In my 25 years of experience, people who are flaming for the fun of it
> might fit that description, but actual hackers who you would interpret the
> writing of as flamage aren't even remotely thinking about its effect on
> their reputation: they're thinking about *the code, damnit*! You're
> screwing up the code; don't *do* that.

No, I think the original comment is perfectly accurate in the Linux community. There's no justification for using flaming as a means of patch commentary: it doesn't provide a useful critique and it doesn't help the patch poster produce a better patch. The only effect it has is establishing the dominance of the flamer over the flamee; a likely consequence of that is to drive the submitter away, and anyone else looking on who doesn't want to be part of that scene.

Several of the more prominent lkml personalities with a reputation for flamboyant and intricate flaming have been asked to tone it down for precisely these reasons - with varying degrees of success.

As a well-known Linux developer said to me privately: "It's horrible how these guys flame below and lick above", which I think is about as succinct and accurate as one can get.

Now you might argue "but they don't flame because they're trying to drive away women". Sure, but that's irrelevant. It drives away lots of people, and a disproportionate number of them will be women.

And it really doesn't take a very large number of assholes to set the tone. Even if its very small proportion - say, <5% - that's enough to drive people away, especially if the assholishness is not challenged by the rest of the community in a consistent way. Silence is read as implied agreement.