undefined | Better HN

0 pointsDiederich11y ago0 comments

I don't understand this perspective. One can be a very effective guardian of quality without being an asshole about it.

For example, this is what Linus wrote:

"Of course, I'd also suggest that whoever was the genius who thought it was a good idea to read things ONE FCKING BYTE AT A TIME with system calls for each byte should be retroactively aborted. Who the fck does idiotic things like that? How did they noty die as babies, considering that they were likely too stupid to find a tit to suck on?

                 Linus"

Instead, he might have been able to write something like this:

"It is a very bad idea to read one byte at a time with a system call, for a variety of reasons, including and especially performance."

I would love to hear how being an abusive asshole actually does any good? I see it as a way to artificially limit the size and diversity of the potential contributor pool.

0 comments

vidarh11y ago

Had this been Kay's first mistake of this magnitude, it would indeed have been reasonable to expect Linus to have been more civilised. Anyone who has followed this more closely would know that this was nowhere near the first time Linus had issues with his code. Yet he did not appear to be interested in listening no matter what Linus told him.

DiederichOP11y ago

I am aware of the fact that this wasn't his first 'offense'.

Nonetheless, my question still stands: how is a verbally abusive diatribe in any way better than a shorter, more reasoned, and perhaps final response?

Kalium11y ago

It makes the reader aware of the writer's true position on the matter, adding emphasis and clarity to the situation. It strengthens the impact.

It could have been "This code is bad. I will not accept this code.". Except that would not have communicated the same message.

It's not always desirable to strip away emotional content.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse