Skip Navigation

linuxmemes @lemmy.world

AdventuringAardvark @lemmy.one

1y ago

Linus does not fuck around

An oldie, but a goodie

You're viewing a single thread.

508 comments

I think whoever recieved this would be completely fine to report Linus to HR or something. The fact somebody thought to circulate it is suggestive that it crossed a line. I do appreciate he does seem to really care about the kernel. He could maybe tone down the hysterics a little.
I think if there's a lesson here its "Never hit send while you're angry" always wait until your hormones to subside before sending an email because emails are records and people don't have good judgement while angry, so an email sent in anger is just a record of your poor judgement.
- They have HR?
  thought to circulate it
  The kernel mailing list is public. Assuming I didnt misunderstand what you meant here.
  
  That's even more fucked up tbh. The public shaming aspect sounds like it would fuck up people.
  That's the kind of behavior that can destroy communities, its surprising if this kind of garbage was tolerated on a public mailing list.
- This is far from the first (or last) time he wrote something like this. This was just a regular thing in the kernel world for a long time (until Linus matured a little).
  Whether or not it was a good thing is up for debate I think. Yeah, it's very rude and unprofessional (and discourages new contributors who don't want to risk getting chewed out), but considering the importance of the Linux kernel, it's good to know the lead maintainer is doing too much of the right thing than not enough (i.e. being lax with bad code in order to be respectful). I'm fine knowing that a few tech workers got their egos smashed if it gives me confidence that the code powering civilization is high quality.
- Does the Linux Foundation even have HR? Even if they did, does an employee of a separate company even have the ability to make a complaint about Linus with them?
  
  For the first part, no clue, but for the second, absolutely
  Just because you work for someone else doesn't give them the right to treat you badly and that sort of behavior can and should be reported to a person's employer.
- I think whoever recieved this would be completely fine to report Linus to HR or something.
  As unnecessary as the tone was, if your first reaction to such a form of address is to run to HR, you're contributing to a toxic workplace. The first and foremost way to address etiquette problems (I am not including criminal behavior in this) is to talk directly to the person who offended you. Everyone has a bad day once in a while, and some people may even shout. If the first reaction is to get them into legal trouble with the employer, most people will rightfully avoid you like you just stepped into dogshit.
  If this kind of behavior - despite having addressed it face to face - keeps occurring, that's a different issue, then HR may be necessary.
  
  Oh yeah, when your boss has anger issues and curses you in email, you really want to politely talk to him and ask him to stop. That will show them that you're a little spineless sucker and can be shat on indefinitely.
  
  Yes, even to your boss you can say that you feel something could have been communicated in a more friendly way. "Anger issues" implies the repeated occurrence for which I already stated before that is a different situation.
  
  The term is "hostile work environment". HR doesn't just respond because of strict liability. Just one occurance of something like this can lead to an otherwise solid worker to spiral from discomfort of the situation, both feeling like a prisoner at their job and producing far less value for their employers.
  The latter is why HR cares, but the former is why it's OKay to go straight to HR. If HR is well-trained, things like this shouldn't escalate just because you went to HR. They should be able to diffuse it productively.
  
  You have obviously never dealt with a real-world scenario. Going straight to HR for someone being verbally(!) out of line, without even using insults, means you are the bigger problem.
  
  I love how everyone online is psychic.
  Actually, I've watched two GREAT workers and good people end up losing their jobs because a easily resolved situation turned toxic. The person who felt uncomfortable tried to take care of it 1-on-1 but had too passive aggressive a nature to really be clear when she confronted the guy.
  So 6 months or a year later, she was on the verge of quitting and went to HR. He was terminated because it had gone too far. She left soon after because she still wasn't comfortable at work after the cause of that ended.
  ...look. I "obviously never dealt" with anything because nobody is allowed differing opinions here, but I have 20+ years experience at businesses where the existence or lack of good HR has been a deciding factor of the work-culture and comfort level of team members. I work 1-on-1 with my company's Directors of HR on a regular basis to make sure my team is happy and because I am involved with other teams at my job who have their own interpersonal conflicts. One of HR's responsibilities in a good company is to involve themselves in interpersonal conflicts BEFORE decisive action has to be taken.
  The problem is that face-to-face confrontations without a mediator don't always end well. And I would rather not have HR decide "we have to fire our Rockstar senior dev or this random guy". But if you address it earlier, HR deals with it earlier (yes, because the paper trail m eans HR can't just fire "this random guy" later over the Rockstar senior dev). It's win-win for all parties INCLUDING the Linus Torvalds in this explanation.
  But I've "obviously never dealt with a real-world scenario" and my experience doesn't count. So you can ignore everything I said.
  
  You are under the very relevant misassumption that HR is less likely to be handling a situation inappropriately than two people speaking with each other directly. I stand by my original comment. A simple verbal overstep, on the first occurrence, should definitely be addressed without involving HR
  
  You are under the very relevant misassumption that HR is less likely to be handling a situation inappropriately
  I have something called an "expertise bias" that I use to make decisions. In a vacuum, I trust an expert to solve a problem over someone with no experience in a given field. I don't ask a barista to fix my car, or my doctor to fix me a latte. Both can screw up in their field, but they are less likely to do so than someone without experience in their specialty. I'm not a barista, a doctor, or an HR expert. Or to put it simpler, the odds of an HR person mishandling someone being non-serially abusive in the workplace is simply lower than the odds of the situation without that person involved. I need this attitutude to live; if a junior dev is trying to override the devops engineer on infrastructure, you'll never guess which one usually wins.
  A simple verbal overstep, on the first occurrence
  What are you talking about now? The topic at hand wasn't verbal and certainly wasn't merely an overstep. We have a an insulting teardown in writing. Substantively different from a verbal teardown. I never said the moment a person loses their cool with em and tells me "fuck off man" I'm knocking on HR's door. But if a senior dev on my team sends this flaming email to a junior dev on my team, I better find out about it and it's getting handled... By HR.
  
  Verbal as in "non physical". I disagree that HR people are " experts" in conflict resolution, they typically are not.
  
  Every time I've seen an HR degree, conflict resolution was a required course.
  It's one thing to say that they're "not good at it", but I suppose by expert I mean professional qualifications. I like to have coworkers who are proficient in their professional qualifications, and then forgive them for the things they're not qualified in but replace them if they are incapable in the things they are supposed to be qualified in.
  Maybe I'm a jerk, but I'm used to having competent people around me and having difficult discussions with those who aren't. HR is the same as any other department in that, to me.
  EDIT: I realize how much of an asshole I sound like. To be clear, I've got the Boston IT scene in my blood. Starting salaries in the 6-figure range, incredibly low oversight. But zero pity for people who can't keep up. I know I need to have more sympathy than that for people who aren't as capable in their job - it's not like I love capitalism as concept.
  And I recognize the irony of acknowledging my own assholishness when the topic is Linus Torvald's assholishness. But then, I'm also used to HR that can move heaven and earth to reconcile a situation with a valued employee. To keep your job where I come from, you need to be so valuable that they'll hide bodies for you (figuratively).
  
  with your last couple of paragraphs it's really difficult to not slip into an ad-hominem response :p I'll leave it at that. Anyways, I stand by my original point: running to HR for a first-time verbal outburst that didn't even involve a direct insult is a dick move and will cause more problems than it solves.
  
  this is literally abuse. if you got this you're already in a toxic workplace.
  
  An individual misbehaving does not constitute a toxic workplace. If you can't tell people that you think their tone is inappropriate, then take it to your manager, but going straight to HR is about the dumbest way to deal with this. Some people don't even realize they overstepped but might be able to empathize once informed.
  
  Hard disagree. This letter is what happens when direct communications have failed.
  Realistically, somebody near Linus probably told him to chill out and that he's damaging his own reputation and his project's by sending out this temper tantrum bullshit. In no world would the target of this letter be the person who successfully sits him down and lectures him on not being an asshole.
  But honestly if he had a habit of sending out this kind of stuff it would be a liability/legal problem.
  
  letter? latter? Linus? what are you even on about. I was speaking generally about such a situation, not this incident in particular.
- I’m pretty sure this is on a public mailing list.
- I don't think HR can deal with a company owner. What could they do?
- I respectfully disagree with you. Sometimes you get blamed by other people mistakes. I don't think this message is a big deal TBH.
  
  Its not really a big deal, but there could've been a nicer way of getting the point across

508 comments