Sharp: Closing a door

Indeed, the post has many excellent qualities. After all these years Linus is still passionate about the kernel and the quality of code. It's good to see.

It is just unfortunate that it is spoiled by an irrational and unjustified accusation of extreme and deliberate incompetence.

Had Linus, on proof-reading before posting, simply deleted the line about "stringing random characters
together until it compiles" it would have done nothing to reduce the effectiveness of the email, and much to reduce the possibility of it causing harm.

I understand that Linus believes that the passion he displays is an important part of his communication style, and he may well be correct. There is a very simple rule that allows you to maintain emotional passion, but avoid (or substantially reduce) the risk of harm:

Make "I" statements, not "you" statements.

"I can't believe I still get patches which add new warnings"

This is only one line in an otherwise very productive email. But it is unarguably attacking "people" (and by implication one or two specific people) rather than attacking the code. And "attack code, not people" seems to be an informal code-of-conduct that is largely agreed too.

> BTW I think CoC's are Marxist "right-think" tools of censorship...

I'm a little surprised that you are agreeing to use the same language as the rest of us - I'm sure it restricts your ability to think freely....
FWIW, I think CoC's are useful tool for unambiguous communication of group norms. It is intrinsic in the human condition that we sacrifice individual freedom to benefit from group support. In situations where body language cannot communicate/mediate those norms, a CoC can help.