On kernel mailing list behavior [LWN.net]

On kernel mailing list behavior

Posted Jul 18, 2013 0:16 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
In reply to: On kernel mailing list behavior by hummassa
Parent article: On kernel mailing list behavior

> Do you have any idea how much does your "it works" contradict "is not a religion - you don't have to believe in it"?

I do. There is no contradiction. It is the same as saying that one does not believe in science - it is not a matter of belief. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

> As Linus himself explained, being polite, at least for him, undermines the way his words

That is the kind of excuse that many abusers make. For instance, we heard many times: "I have to hit my wife - she provokes me". And some such crap.

PS. Yes, I used a physical abuse example.

to post comments

On kernel mailing list behavior

Posted Jul 18, 2013 0:21 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] (1 responses)

> For instance, we heard many times: "I have to hit my wife - she provokes me".

OOPS - part of it fell out. Should be:

"I have to hit my wife - she provokes me - if I don't hit her, she won't get the message not to do it next time."

On kernel mailing list behavior

Posted Jul 18, 2013 11:14 UTC (Thu) by simosx (guest, #24338) [Link]

Or "The child is screaming. A slap on the face is what works. Debating with the child does not work."

I think these are the analogies that need to be put forward to show how moronic are the attitudes of Linus, Greg and others.

On kernel mailing list behavior

Posted Jul 18, 2013 2:30 UTC (Thu) by hummassa (guest, #307) [Link] (9 responses)

> It is the same as saying that one does not believe in science - it is not a matter of belief. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

Nope. I'm sorry, but your "it works" affirmative is not akin to saying "science" but "the effectiveness and safety in the use of anlodipin as a medication for arterial hypertension". Yes, some social constructs are based on politeness. Some professional social constructs are based on politeness. And they work. But you are making the statement that *only* they work, and that they work *because* of the politeness.

Guess what? Being impolite also works. There are lots of social constructs that are based in being impolite as the de facto etiquette. And they don't fall apart. Do you know why? Because it's even more efficient in avoiding social mistakes than being polite all the time. So, if my best friend says to me "you are an imbecile" and I reply "at least I am not as ugly as you", when one of us is *really* upset with the other and calls him an idiot, it may even pass as the "normal banter". And gives time for both to calm down before someone takes offense. But if we refer to each other as "best buddy" and "smart man", the stress situation could escalate more easily.

I suspect the politeness-based social constructs work in spite of the politeness, but I can't prove *that*.

On kernel mailing list behavior

Posted Jul 18, 2013 3:05 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] (8 responses)

First, your example of an exchange between best friends is hardly an example of civility in the workplace or generally in society. The underlying relationship between best friends allows for forms of communication that are simply not possible or acceptable in the workplace, around your neighbours or other citizens you may bump into on the street. In other words, when you say to your best friend "you're an idiot", it doesn't have quite the same meaning that it would if you said it to a person that is building a piece of software with you, works with you or just lives next door. In other words - that exchange is not abusive - because both parties accept (through the nature of the friendship) this kind of communication. So, if anything, this just proves my point.

Second, the human history directly contradicts your proposition that being abusive (impolite) works. It doesn't and as a race humans are rejecting it more every day. You don't have to go back much to find proof. Be it racial, sexual, religious, child or any other kind of abuse is not accepted any more in modern, civilised societies.

So, absolutely, "politeness" (i.e. being considerate and not abusive) is absolutely the underpinning of every civilised society.

On kernel mailing list behavior

Posted Jul 18, 2013 14:31 UTC (Thu) by nevets (subscriber, #11875) [Link] (5 responses)

You start off being polite, and if that doesn't work than you get nasty. Otherwise you just waste everyone's time and people end up even *more* pissed off.

That is basically how Linus does it.

On kernel mailing list behavior

Posted Jul 18, 2013 23:55 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] (4 responses)

This is exactly how it should _not_ work. I still remember telling the general manager (and owner) of the company I worked for (in front of other people that were present in the meeting) to stop yelling at me, because he is not my father. He did stop and never tried that again.

Abuse is never OK. There is a difference between aggressive and assertive. Google it if you don't believe me.

On kernel mailing list behavior

Posted Jul 19, 2013 1:25 UTC (Fri) by nevets (subscriber, #11875) [Link] (2 responses)

IF I WRITE MY REPLY IN ALL CAPS, AM I ABUSING YOU?

Yes? No?

There's a huge difference between yelling face to face and on email. The problem with text is that it's much harder to tell the degree the person is upset with you, or disagrees with you.

When Linus disagrees with me, I take his level of emotion as a gauge of how much he disagrees with me. If he says "you shouldn't do it that way", it sounds like he doesn't like it, but he doesn't really care that much about it, and may still let me do it if I really want to. If he says "Only a f*cking idiot would do it that way", it's clear that I screwed up and need to change the way it was done. It's about communication, that's all.

On kernel mailing list behavior

Posted Jul 19, 2013 2:01 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] (1 responses)

> IF I WRITE MY REPLY IN ALL CAPS, AM I ABUSING YOU?

> Yes? No?

All I can tell is that you are shouting. Now, depending you what you are saying, it may be yes or it may be know. Compare:

WE WON THE GAME! YAY!

with

YOU STUPID MORON!

Pretty easy to figure out, really.

> If he says "Only a f*cking idiot would do it that way", it's clear that I screwed up and need to change the way it was done. It's about communication, that's all.

Well, maybe you are are a buddy of Linus and you guys have exchanges like this in private. If that is the case and you are both cool with that, that's fine.

However, if you are not buddies, this kind of exchange may be considered abuse by you. Also, there is the problem of a the list being _public_. Other people may take offence to that kind of exchange, as it may sound intimidating to them. For instance, Sarah did - which then makes it inappropriate.

On kernel mailing list behavior

Posted Jul 19, 2013 2:02 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

> may be know.

Er, sorry. Should be "may be no", of course.

On kernel mailing list behavior

Posted Jul 19, 2013 12:23 UTC (Fri) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link]

"This is exactly how it should _not_ work."

Nonetheless, it does.

On kernel mailing list behavior

Posted Jul 19, 2013 3:10 UTC (Fri) by Tara_Li (guest, #26706) [Link] (1 responses)

And it's not like you can't be quite abusive being extremely polite. The British Upper Crust, and the American Gentile South proved that a long time ago. Why, one might argue that bringing Gentility and Civility to the unwashed masses is the burden of some specific group.

On kernel mailing list behavior

Posted Jul 19, 2013 15:52 UTC (Fri) by smurf (subscriber, #17840) [Link]

Sure you can, but if the recipient is not part of the same society your abuse will flow through their brain without affecting any of their neurons the way the sender intended.