I don't think a "he used to be worse" defense is a takeaway from the above. The comment mentions the past to highlight it's not like previous rants people may assume it might be like to encourage giving it a read. Separate explanations were offered for why they believe the message was a reasonable response in its own light.
I agree the last 2-3 paragraphs could be better but I disagree that's the bar for what's professional, let alone what is reasonable to stand out out of a month's worth of emails. It's also hard to square that message being so horrible by nature of being shitty and just to make Linus feel better - to me, these are more pointed and more personally directed statements than the supposedly problematic discourse they're about (though still relatively mild overall).
We aren't all perfect in communication all the time, even the most ideal professionals. A large part of good discourse is accepting reasonable amounts of people being human and de-escalating smaller perceived slights naturally before declaring the conversation can't be stood for. Jumping at the latter can cause well meaning and well received folks to feel bullied, which is the exact opposite to the goal of trying to keep a professional air to discussion. Hell, some of the times I've been more colorfully told to look in the mirror were the best things which could have been said to me at the time (even if they might not be reasonable things to have heard at other times).
> We aren't all perfect in communication all the time, even the most ideal professionals. A large part of good discourse is accepting reasonable amounts of people being human and de-escalating smaller perceived slights naturally before declaring the conversation can't be stood for.
Do you not rink its fair to say that Linus has a track record of provoking that sort of behaviour?
I interpret the question as asking if I believe Linus has a track record of provoking escalating style behavior, if that's incorrect then ignore the following to re-ask and maybe I'll read it correctly the second time it's phrased :).
I'd disagree with that as his track record, though you won't find me claiming he is the perfect/ideal/flawless role model in that regard either. In my opinion, overall, he has reasonable and professional track record across the board these last few years (anything prior to that doesn't set the track record in my book). Especially if you read his emails regularly, not just the most popular ones about the most charged discussions he's asked to enter into. If you'd asked me the same question 10 years ago I'd've given a very different answer.
> Do you not rink its fair to say that Linus has a track record of provoking that sort of behaviour?
It's true that reporting on Linus' emails has a track record of only highlighting the rudest ones, creating this impression in your mind. Anything else is speculation.
> Do you not rink its fair to say that Linus has a track record of provoking that sort of behaviour?
Your point about Linus's behaviour are correct in some sense: other people would make the same point less aggressively. But you aren't making any attempt to balance the scales.
There isn't some other version of Linus lying on the shelf that has the technical decision making record he does, and is also a great diplomat. So the choices are: keep the flawed but highly talented man we have, or discard Linus for someone else who almost certainly will be worse technically, but may be a better wordsmith.
I'd wager most of the people here have jobs that depend on Linus's technical skills. That's certainly true of most people whose day jobs are working on the kernel. They've made their choice, and it's the obvious one. They'll take the man that abuses them for their mistakes over a silver tongued Mr average.
If you don't like that, go and work on your own kernel for Mr average. But if you take that route, be prepared for the fact that no one is going to want to use your kernel because, well, it's average.
Linus is perfectly capable of making the same point less aggressively, he's done so on the same topic [0].
> So the choices are: keep the flawed but highly talented man we have, or discard Linus for someone else who almost certainly will be worse technically, but may be a better wordsmith.
I don't think that's true. There's always other options.
I agree the last 2-3 paragraphs could be better but I disagree that's the bar for what's professional, let alone what is reasonable to stand out out of a month's worth of emails. It's also hard to square that message being so horrible by nature of being shitty and just to make Linus feel better - to me, these are more pointed and more personally directed statements than the supposedly problematic discourse they're about (though still relatively mild overall).
We aren't all perfect in communication all the time, even the most ideal professionals. A large part of good discourse is accepting reasonable amounts of people being human and de-escalating smaller perceived slights naturally before declaring the conversation can't be stood for. Jumping at the latter can cause well meaning and well received folks to feel bullied, which is the exact opposite to the goal of trying to keep a professional air to discussion. Hell, some of the times I've been more colorfully told to look in the mirror were the best things which could have been said to me at the time (even if they might not be reasonable things to have heard at other times).