linux-kernel - Re: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFw9E4mORqJaC+5n_dy8GgiQN6QRZh3-2GH99sedrYoEkA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 16 Jul 2013 18:37:47 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	Sarah Sharp <sarah.a.sharp@...ux.intel.com>,
	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Subject: Re: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> "Mauro, SHUT THE FUCK UP!"
>
> This one crosses the line.  There's no non-offensive way to tell a geek
> "you are wrong", but this isn't even trying.  Bad Linus!

You know what? Not my proudest moment. I was really upset.

But that said, in my defense I actually think that one stands out. I
have written a lot of public emails, and that one line is probably the
single most over-the-line one. Or at least pretty close to the top.
And it's not so much because of the swearing, but because of the "shut
up" part. Or is that just me not reacting to swearwords again?

Do I go overboard sometimes? Hell yes. But I get emotional about some
of this, and I not only think that's ok, I actually think it's
important. You mentioned the "lost the raw, red-hot anger of the
original", and I do think emotion is important to convey. It's not
just the message, it's also the fact that I'm really really pissed.

Neil Brown here somewhere earlier said

  "So my personal perspective on what it means to be responsible is:

   Don't flame:  include the facts, exclude the emotion."

and I can't overstate how much I disagree. You do need the factual
part too, but "exclude the emotion" is not good either.

Emotions aren't bad. Quite the reverse. If we are expected to have a
sense of personal trust between the people involved (and quite
frankly, apart from just "technical excellence" I think personal trust
is just about the top criterion for good maintainers), I definitely
think that it's not about just about the facts. You need to hear the
*person* too. And some people are calm and don't swear, and that's
them. Others aren't.

Yeah, yeah, I go overboard. Whatever. At least you guys know that when
I get emotional, I'm not going to come asking for a shoulder to cry
on.

I think a little excessive swearing is less awkward for everybody in the end.

            Linus

Side note: the whole "trust the person" doesn't mean you have to like
that person. "Trust" is about having your expectations met, not
necessarily about those expectations always being all that positive. .
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/