> I wish people in this thread would stop turning the discussion into a straw-man argument about Linus’s language and focus their attention to the technical and security problems at hand.
There wasn't much of a technical and security discussion in what was posted. Linus spent his time writing about his feelings and how hurt they were that someone did something he didn't like. Very little of substance or merit was communicated. If you consistently behave like a petulant child in a leadership role, expect people to gawk at it.
I feel like a lot of people judge Linus by some internal moral compass which just seems pointless to me. If anything is petulant and childish it's trying to control others for not fitting within some arbitrary set of personal rules.
Linus does a good job at maintaining kernel development and often makes sharp technical commentary. By those measures his communication style seems to have been successful and practically helpful so far.
As great as it is to sit in your chair and make snide remarks about him. The Linux Kernel seems to have a proven track record of success under that role
That is to say, it is the largest collaborative software project in human history
No amount of Linus being a "petulant child" can disprove the results of his style
That’s a pretty uncharitable analysis of the situation. The point of the attack are Intel’s future intentions as implied by the patches, and the degree which those intentions are at odds with Intel’s announced guidance.
That seems like a very significant technical and security matter worth discussing, no matter the style of its delivery.
There wasn't much of a technical and security discussion in what was posted. Linus spent his time writing about his feelings and how hurt they were that someone did something he didn't like. Very little of substance or merit was communicated. If you consistently behave like a petulant child in a leadership role, expect people to gawk at it.