undefined | Better HN

0 pointsvidarh11y ago0 comments

In this case Linus had tried for quite some time to get the person in question to stop pushing crap. Linus eventually told him he'd stop merging his code. From that point of view, if he'd walked after being talked to like that, it'd have been seen as a benefit by many.

EDIT: I find it quite amusing that I get downvoted for a fairly dispassionate and mostly objective explanation of context, yet several of my far more subjective and controversial comments elsewhere in this thread have gotten heavily upvoted. Figures.

0 comments

Diederich11y ago

It's quite possible to make it clear that he'd stop accepting code without descending to abusive language. Erecting a 'safety barrier' against someone who was doing a poor job and being verbally abusive are entirely unrelated.

You say that blocking these merge requests would benefit many; so be it. Being polite about doing that would benefit the same set of people, and may others at the same time.

vidarhOP11y ago

It is possible.

There are also people involved on both sides, and people get angry and frustrated.

> Being polite about doing that would benefit the same set of people, and may others at the same time.

And a lot of people believe that sugar-coating it would reduce the benefit by signalling that Kays behaviour wasn't so bad after all.

Diederich11y ago

In my opinion, there is a huge distance between politely pointing out the faults and problems with something and sugar-coating.

And maybe this approaches the crux of the problem. It seems that there is a false dichotomy at work here.

Being polite (or, indeed, just not being verbally abusive) takes less time and energy, and is overwhelmingly more effective, than being overly abrasive.

I don't believe 'Sugar-coating' has anything to do with being polite and accurate. 'Sugar-coating' is all about being less accurate and on point.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsvidarh11y ago0 comments

0 comments

Diederich11y ago

You say that blocking these merge requests would benefit many; so be it. Being polite about doing that would benefit the same set of people, and may others at the same time.

vidarhOP11y ago

It is possible.

There are also people involved on both sides, and people get angry and frustrated.

> Being polite about doing that would benefit the same set of people, and may others at the same time.

And a lot of people believe that sugar-coating it would reduce the benefit by signalling that Kays behaviour wasn't so bad after all.

Diederich11y ago

In my opinion, there is a huge distance between politely pointing out the faults and problems with something and sugar-coating.

And maybe this approaches the crux of the problem. It seems that there is a false dichotomy at work here.

Being polite (or, indeed, just not being verbally abusive) takes less time and energy, and is overwhelmingly more effective, than being overly abrasive.

I don't believe 'Sugar-coating' has anything to do with being polite and accurate. 'Sugar-coating' is all about being less accurate and on point.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse