- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Linix kernel dev who asked Linus Torvalds to stop swearing quits over swearing
|
|
|
Comments (59)
39 earlier comments in the full thread.
> ... and what is this political agenda?
Simply Google SJW and read to your heart's content. Given the high profile events that have taken place lately (Brandon Eich, to give just one example), people making such assumptions is somewhat understandable. Not necessarily correct, but understandable. I don't know anything about Sarah or her contributions to the kernel, so I have basis for making judgements on the matter. Nor do I care to take time to do so, given the outside events ongoing in life at the present time.
As I said, I've tried to stay out of it, but some of the comments have seemed too much like personal attacks or disqualifications of opinions to me. I've commented on those and I'm answering direct questions about my comments, but given the volatile nature of the discussion I'm trying to limit my participation.
Simply Google SJW and read to your heart's content. Given the high profile events that have taken place lately (Brandon Eich, to give just one example), people making such assumptions is somewhat understandable. Not necessarily correct, but understandable. I don't know anything about Sarah or her contributions to the kernel, so I have basis for making judgements on the matter. Nor do I care to take time to do so, given the outside events ongoing in life at the present time.
As I said, I've tried to stay out of it, but some of the comments have seemed too much like personal attacks or disqualifications of opinions to me. I've commented on those and I'm answering direct questions about my comments, but given the volatile nature of the discussion I'm trying to limit my participation.
cybertao wrote:You can understand why. If they make any complaints they get attacked for being whinny bitches who's SJW opinions don't matter, with the genuine complaint never being addressed.
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
But, yes, if you make a complaint without proving it to be genuine, no one should care. It's of no importance. Quite frankly this specific case is all about how one person was offended, and that stopped them from collaborating. If you can't work just because other people think different than yourself, talk different, behave different, or treat people different than how you would, it's no one's fault but your own. Everyone isn't going -- and aren't required nor should be expected -- to agree with you or be nice to you.
If you can't work in that environment, leave (as Sarah Sharp rightfully did). If you try to change the community, you are no longer joining it, you are creating a new one.
gus3 wrote:Until now. Otherwise, the only way to hold up that argument is to declare Sarah Sharp "no one of importance or talent."
Yes, I am of that opinion. You can go check her commit logs, she is of no importance or talent. I, of course, would never compare myself to her, but I will rightfully compare her to the other developers on LKML, and she places far down on the totem pole.
gus3 wrote:And, as far as corporations vs. individuals goes, take a look at the email addresses of the contributors. You'll see "ibm.com", "redhat.com", "nvidia.com" ...
Your point?
My point was Linus says "F*ck you NVIDIA" far less often than he says "F*ck you <insert developer for NVIDIA here>", the difference is all of the important NVIDIA developers are still contributing while Sarah Sharp left at the first thing slightly resembling cussing between people other than herself.
gus3 wrote:If those companies didn't want their good names sullied by individuals' mis-steps, they'd have policies in place against using such email addresses/contact info on copyrighted material.
You're making my point here.
All of these companies allow their employees to publicly work on Linux in relation with and endorsement of their respective companies and products despite Linus' foul tongue. If they thought his speech was harmful they wouldn't associate their companies with him.
So Sharp made the correct decision by leaving, was correct with the statements made regarding an institutionalised culture of abusive behaviour, but was wrong to make a public complaint about it?
cybertao wrote:Sharp made the correct decision by leaving
Yes, if she has a problem, she is right in leaving.
cybertao wrote:was correct with the statements made regarding an institutionalised culture of abusive behaviour
SHE had a problem. My problem with her is her insisting that what she finds problematic, everyone should find problematic. Not everyone finds Linus' speech all that problematic. It really is a first-world problem to complain about how someone said something mean to you, in fact it's childish.
cybertao wrote:but was wrong to make a public complaint about it?
No, it was wrong to make accusations without evidence.
As far as what has been shown, there isn't any sexism and homophobia being tolerated on LKML. And her complaints about "abusive language" were Linus and a couple of other people having friendly, joking banter between each other, a conversation that didn't even include her.
She's wrong on all accounts. But still right in leaving if she wants.
> ...was correct with the statements made regarding an institutionalised culture of abusive behaviour
That's the crucial point, isn't it? Obviously there's not agreement on the matter.
That's the crucial point, isn't it? Obviously there's not agreement on the matter.
jdixon wrote:Obviously there's not agreement on the matter.Not in the case of AwesomeTux, who agrees that there is a culture of abusive behaviour but happens to think that's a constructive working environment.
cybertao, don't put words in my mouth.
Unlike the U.N. I don't believe "cybertouch" is the same as a physical touch. That is to say, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." That idea is so obvious, it is part of a nursery rhyme, even children understand it.
So, yes and no. Sometimes people NEED to be told very bluntly that the code they wrote is terrible. But no matter how colorful you go with telling them that, it's never abusive.
Unlike the U.N. I don't believe "cybertouch" is the same as a physical touch. That is to say, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." That idea is so obvious, it is part of a nursery rhyme, even children understand it.
So, yes and no. Sometimes people NEED to be told very bluntly that the code they wrote is terrible. But no matter how colorful you go with telling them that, it's never abusive.
Here is a thread where Sarah and Linus (and a few others) argue about respectful language on LKML.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/15/407
She says she is standing up for people that are easily subdued by strongly typed email language. While I agree that abusive language to subordinates isn't the best long-term way to manage a team, I have seen it achieve amazing short-term results. When you use it consistently as a motivating tool, though, you risk burning your people out or desensitizing them to it.
There's a saying from one of my favorite book series that goes “There are three things all wise men fear: the sea in storm, a night with no moon, and the anger of a gentle man.” You want people to fear you WHEN you're angry, and respect you when you're not. I know that's not Linus' style, and many other people in leadership roles share the same style as his. We can argue the merits of that style all day, but it achieves nothing. Honestly, I think there needs to be a compromise here. Linus could stand to tone it down a little (only a little), and the targets of his rants could grow some thicker skin and realize that life isn't always easy and sometimes people yell at you.
She says she is standing up for people that are easily subdued by strongly typed email language. While I agree that abusive language to subordinates isn't the best long-term way to manage a team, I have seen it achieve amazing short-term results. When you use it consistently as a motivating tool, though, you risk burning your people out or desensitizing them to it.
There's a saying from one of my favorite book series that goes “There are three things all wise men fear: the sea in storm, a night with no moon, and the anger of a gentle man.” You want people to fear you WHEN you're angry, and respect you when you're not. I know that's not Linus' style, and many other people in leadership roles share the same style as his. We can argue the merits of that style all day, but it achieves nothing. Honestly, I think there needs to be a compromise here. Linus could stand to tone it down a little (only a little), and the targets of his rants could grow some thicker skin and realize that life isn't always easy and sometimes people yell at you.
> Not in the case of AwesomeTux,
Not in the case of (at the very least) a significant minority of the population.
Not in the case of (at the very least) a significant minority of the population.
After all these discussions and news I read here and there, does anyone has screenshots, etc of the stuff that was said which was offensive and not taken out of context. In the midst of all the whining I cannot find any text which proves that claim. Or am I missing something?
weareborg wrote:After all these discussions and news I read here and there, does anyone has screenshots, etc of the stuff that was said which was offensive and not taken out of context. In the midst of all the whining I cannot find any text which proves that claim. Or am I missing something?
kikinovak linked to an article "Looking at the facts: Sarah Sharp’s crusade", in which you can read for yourself how Sarah Sharp acts like a party pooper, throwing the first F-bomb in a friendly conversation not involving her. You will also notice there developers agreeing with Linus' style.
As for the "sexism and homophobia" comment Sarah Sharp made, I can't find any proof either.
> Or am I missing something?
If you were missing such a thing, don't you think it would have been well documented by someone on Sarah Sharp's side by this point?
If you were missing such a thing, don't you think it would have been well documented by someone on Sarah Sharp's side by this point?
>> Or am I missing something?
> If you were missing such a thing, don't you think it would have been well documented by someone on Sarah Sharp's side by this point?
Ditto.
It's not that there aren't any problems -- but Sharp isn't doing anything constructive about them.
In fact I'd argue that her actions have been actually counter-constructive.
She essentially stuck her oar in, precisely where there wasn't any actual problem -- and she wasn't even in the boat in question. And when told as much, she doubled down instead of re-considering. So she took offense over, and quit over, the plight of "victims" who weren't unhappy, and who didn't need or want help. If you're going to rescue people from "abuse", it helps to be able to distinguish between actual abuse and lighthearted banter between friendly colleagues on good terms with each other.
Meanwhile, actual problems and actual people who could use some meaningful support (and those people who'd like to do something to meaningfully support them) are left in a weaker position than before, because their efforts and issues will inevitably be compared to and coloured by the Sarah Sharp incident(s).
> If you were missing such a thing, don't you think it would have been well documented by someone on Sarah Sharp's side by this point?
Ditto.
It's not that there aren't any problems -- but Sharp isn't doing anything constructive about them.
In fact I'd argue that her actions have been actually counter-constructive.
She essentially stuck her oar in, precisely where there wasn't any actual problem -- and she wasn't even in the boat in question. And when told as much, she doubled down instead of re-considering. So she took offense over, and quit over, the plight of "victims" who weren't unhappy, and who didn't need or want help. If you're going to rescue people from "abuse", it helps to be able to distinguish between actual abuse and lighthearted banter between friendly colleagues on good terms with each other.
Meanwhile, actual problems and actual people who could use some meaningful support (and those people who'd like to do something to meaningfully support them) are left in a weaker position than before, because their efforts and issues will inevitably be compared to and coloured by the Sarah Sharp incident(s).
The link mentioned doesn't contain any offensive or abusive text, I mean we have more crazy jokes in our office. I can also see how the issue was escalated out of no where. Crazy stuff.
> She essentially stuck her oar in, precisely where there wasn't any actual problem -- and she wasn't even in the boat in question. And when told as much, she doubled down instead of re-considering.
The Sarah Sharp opposition can be summed up fairly easily: She's an SJW, and she follows the Three Laws of SJWs.
1. SJWs always lie. 2. SJWs always double down. 3. SJWs always project.
See http://www.amazon.com/SJWs-Always-Lie-Taking-Thought-ebook/d...
As I said, I don't know enough about her to form a judgment. But given recent events (see http://www.wqxr.org/story/nyc-gilbert-sullivan-troupe-cancel... for one example), I can't blame anyone who makes assumptions.
The Sarah Sharp opposition can be summed up fairly easily: She's an SJW, and she follows the Three Laws of SJWs.
1. SJWs always lie. 2. SJWs always double down. 3. SJWs always project.
See http://www.amazon.com/SJWs-Always-Lie-Taking-Thought-ebook/d...
As I said, I don't know enough about her to form a judgment. But given recent events (see http://www.wqxr.org/story/nyc-gilbert-sullivan-troupe-cancel... for one example), I can't blame anyone who makes assumptions.
Here's the voice of sanity. https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/24/142
> Here's the voice of sanity.
Hard to determine if this lady is authentic, but I don't care. Now I'm outraged by the 'kick me' incident.
I'm not sure what a 'senior staffer' is, but Ida kicked Randy Lehman right square in the nads! OTOH, maybe Palacio was right not to. I hope he wins his suit against Intel.
Another reason to believe Sarah's antics are the work of a control freak. Has she quit? Has she sued? Of course not. No mileage in that.
Hard to determine if this lady is authentic, but I don't care. Now I'm outraged by the 'kick me' incident.
I'm not sure what a 'senior staffer' is, but Ida kicked Randy Lehman right square in the nads! OTOH, maybe Palacio was right not to. I hope he wins his suit against Intel.
Another reason to believe Sarah's antics are the work of a control freak. Has she quit? Has she sued? Of course not. No mileage in that.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Until now. Otherwise, the only way to hold up that argument is to declare Sarah Sharp "no one of importance or talent."
And, as far as corporations vs. individuals goes, take a look at the email addresses of the contributors. You'll see "ibm.com", "redhat.com", "nvidia.com", and the like in there, along with copyright notices using those email addresses. Company reputations are on the line, along with individual reputations. Some developers are even paid by their employers to develop Linux kernel code. If those companies didn't want their good names sullied by individuals' mis-steps, they'd have policies in place against using such email addresses/contact info on copyrighted material.