I think the burden is on both parties. I consider the goal of professional communication to be "exchange as much information as possible in a way that is understood by everyone." For example, in Torvalds' situation, he needs to convey to everyone "don't use these kinds of comment format, it really matters to me that you follow my rules on this" in the maximally efficient way.

I argue that the most efficient, productive way to do that is to go a neutral course: Say what you mean, but don't insult or harass someone while doing it.

Bigler's piece strikes me as true and accurate, but at the same time, doesn't imply that nerds communicate by saying "hey, fuck you asshole, here's the way to X Y Z!" That is, I take it to mean conversations flow like this:

Nerd A says: "Idea X"

Nerd B says: "Idea X isn't right and definitely won't work."

Nerd A heard: "Nerd B doesn't think Idea X is right or will work."

Normal person heard: "Nerd B thinks my ideas are stupid."

not like this:

Nerd A says: "Idea X"

Nerd B says: "Fuck you, that's stupid, how could you EVER think idea X was good?! You're an idiot."

In this case, I think both Nerd A and Normal Person would be insulted. The discourse has become unnecessarily and unproductively personal. That's what Linus is doing. There's a difference between "direct"/"blunt" and "rude"/"insulting."