Torvalds rails at Linux developer: 'I'm f*cking tired of your code' Never one to mince words, Linux kernel chief Linus Torvalds has once again handed a verbal smackdown to a Linux developer, this time for failing to address a serious bug that could prevent systems from booting. The target of Torvald's latest tirade was Kay Sievers, one of the key developers of systemd, a system-management …
My first language is Danish and I've RTFM for English. Swearing is inappropriate in a public venue, and the first-person pronoun has been capitalized since about the 15th century. I'm not perfect either, but anybody that doesn't know those two points is either not trying, or just plain rude. And don't try to tell me the errors are typos.
My first language is English. In fact, my only language is English.
Unless you are correcting someones term paper or something formal, for most of us you are just considered and asshole for going around correcting peoples English.
Communication is transmission of meaning and sometimes swearing is the only way to get that job done. It is not appropriate in some settings but in others it is, especially if it is the only way to get some shit head to listen or sometime to just shut the f__K up.
I am well published and have been researching, writing and doing formal presentations for the past few decades but believe me I have no idea what "first-person pronoun" is. I can guarantee you most us "native english speakers or not" do not give a sh about formal English. Generally with practice it just works, it is what it is because it sounds ok or looks ok.
Are you sure your first language is English? It reads more as American. Americans do have a rather loose grasp of English and manners at times. "English spoken by foreigners" comes to mind. Swearing is often just an expression of limited competence. Like good manners, why should good language be restricted to formal occasions as if it is a foreign concept to the writer?
If you do not know what the first person pronoun is, I doubt that you are a Professional writer or even frequent presenter. If language is a tool of your trade, you should know some basic grammar. Pronouns are fairly basic.
As for rudeness and swearing, having lived in several countries, two of which required and one that now still requires me to use both English and the local language, swearing and rudeness are bad form in both formal and informal writing in most cultures and environments. Swearing is often just an expression of limited competence, imagination and cliche. Like good manners, why should good language be restricted to formal occasions as if it is a foreign concept to the writer? Even you do not care to write the word, "fuck", in full.
Also, as the hallowed Linus Torvalds is writing in a forum that gets rather a wider audience than just the object of his displeasure, he is writing in public and ought to show the respect and manners that he probably expects from others.
> If you do not know what the first person pronoun is, [ ...] If language is a tool of your trade, you should know some basic grammar
No (kind of), yes (kind of), you need to be clear about definitions and here you're conflating two things.
A formal understanding of language is entirely separate from the instinctive grasp necessary for use. I have no formal understanding; I don't know how to parse a sentence and label its parts. I don't know what a pronoun is, never mind the first person type. Or adjectives, or adverbs or gerunds or...
I do have the strong innate understanding that allows me to use english as well as, or better than, many. Look over my previous posts. Therefore I'd say this demonstrates that a formal understanding is unnecessary. Honestly, what would I gain from it?
Notes.
1) english is my first and (regrettably) only language
2) The spelling of english uncapitalised is by choice.
3) Transmission of a clear message is far more important than the minutiae of precisely 'correct' spelling (whatever that is), but the former is never so bitched over as the latter. When some commenter says "you could have said that in half the number of words" instead of picking on the greengrocer's apostrophe, I'll cheer.
> My language
Yours? Got a receipt?
> all the while ignoring its larger point I'm making.
When presenting oneself as some sort of linguistic expert, it would almost certainly be better not to have made quite such a ballsup of said expertise...
Vic.
> Yours? Got a receipt?
Très glib. It's mine by use, as it is yours by use.
> some sort of linguistic expert
I did not claim this, I claim I can use english competently. I'm not e.g. David Crystal who has earned that title.
> quite such a ballsup of said expertise
A disagreement between us does not necessarily comprise a ballsup on my part. It may, and you're free to show where I failed, but I've put my point as cogently as possible. I'd like this discussion to be constructive, please.
> It's mine by use, as it is yours by use.
It is neither mine nor yours byu use. It only holds value when everyone agrees on what sounds or markings actually mean. Thus your attempt to use it in ways other than the accepted norm serve only to devalue the language and demonstrate your own lack of capability. "I does it different like" is utter bullshit.
> A disagreement between us does not necessarily comprise a ballsup on my part
Indeed it does not - but your hopeless grammar certainly demonstrates a lack of that "innate" understanding you claim to have.
Vic.
@Vic
You're more correct than you let on. Disagreement between two or more parties on the meaning of a given sound or marking is what all civil wars/internal uprisings are fought over and most international conflicts as well. Law! Law is 99.990% comprised of nothing more than providing evidence of historical acceptance of the meaning of a term within a given context.
It is just extraordinarily silly for someone to argue that developing their own rules for the use of a language is a valid use of that language if the target audience doesn't also use the same rules. Things like 'inalienable Hunan rights' are a fine thing, until some guy decides you aren't Human, or only three-fifths of one. Likewise with otherwise simple words like 'perform' and 'work'. 'Performing' the wrong kind of 'work' or at the wrong time, can get you anything from a union grievance filed against you in a factory or get you nailed to a tree if you're a Jew in Roman Occupied Israel.
So yeah, sounds, markings and agreement on their use and meaning are rather important things. You can't just go mixing them up as you please until you've first demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the accepted ways of their use. You've got to have A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man before you can have a Finnegan's Wake. Otherwise you're just a loon :)
@Don Jefe, @Vic
It seems some people are really struggling to get what I say. It should be clear enough.
> It is just extraordinarily silly for someone to argue that developing their own rules for the use of a language is a valid use of that language if the target audience doesn't also use the same rules
This is completely true and I fully endorse it, however it has no relationship to what I originally said, that one could grasp and apply the informal rules of natural language without being taught the formal rules of the language.
This does not relate to mutating the rules of the language. I mentioned not capitalising some words to make clear it was by personal choice not typo, so you wouldn't get all smug on me. If that single item has managed to distract you from my main point, that is depressing.
> You can't just go mixing them up as you please until you've first demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the accepted ways of their use
I thought I had.
> It seems some people are really struggling to get what I say
We're not - it's just that what you say is wrong.
Many people are wrong much of the time - and that's just fine. But you set yourself up as being some sort of expert, whereas your knowledge of language is actually insufficiently thorough even to understand how wrong you are. So you get called on it...
Vic.
> it's just that what you say is wrong
just saying 'you're wrong' repeatedly doesn't advance the debate.
> But you set yourself up as being some sort of expert
likewise your inability to read my prior post disclaiming exactly this.
> just saying 'you're wrong' repeatedly doesn't advance the debate.
I quoted the bit you got wrong. Feel free to go back and look at it. If you can't work out why it's wrong - I suggest you read a grammar. It really ought to scream at you...
> likewise your inability to read my prior post disclaiming exactly this.
Oh., I read that post - as well as the other one where you claimed exactly what you disclaimed :-
I do have the strong innate understanding that allows me to use english as well as, or better than, many.
That's the nice thing about the written word - it tends to leave a trace...
Vic.
> I quoted the bit you got wrong.
what, this bit?
"
> It seems some people are really struggling to get what I say
We're not - it's just that what you say is wrong.
"
Erm, can you even distinguish between a formal and an informal understanding?
And me saying "I do have the strong innate understanding that allows me to use english as well as, or better than, many." simply is me claiming that I'm good with it, but that's not expertise. I'm not an expert. Now I've said it explicitly twice.
You do seem to be reading into things what you wish.
@BlueGreen
You're right, I did ignore your larger point - as it was nonsense. Not to mention your claim that it is your language is demonstrably false.
Every language has rules. Without those rules, you don't have an effective or usable language. Yes, there are limits to what every day people need to know to use the language but people still understand the rules, generally. Its why we teach them in school.
Your basic understanding of English does appear to be lacking - to the extent where your message is warped and difficult to understand.
Think of it this way - web browsers use formal specifications in order to interpret web pages. However, they have an issue when they come across a web page which doesn't comply with those rules. So, they then have to basically guess what to do. You then end up with the things like the Internet Explorer box model problem, or you end up with a completely malformed page displayed to the user.
If all web designers and web browser makers followed the specifications properly, that would never happen and everyone would get to see what the designer intended without interpretation. The same concept applies to the English (and other) languages. Without following the rules, people have to engage in a lot of guesswork to figure out what you're saying and often, those guesses end up warping the message.
> Every language has rules
Exactly! I agree totally.
There are formal rules about sentence structure etc. which are taught in schools, and there's the innate grasp which comes from exposure to the language. I have the latter only, which includes an informal but still strong set of rules, which embody the formal rules, and go much further.
The idea that one can't use language unless it's taught in class is as bizarre as saying one picks up the meanings of words only from a dictionary.
> Think of it this way - web browsers use formal specifications in order to interpret web pages.
There's a fundamental difference between natural language and formal languages. Formal languages are for a limited domain and *require* an unambiguous definition. English is *not* a formally defined language. If you don't realise the difference, you're going to struggle in IT (Incidentally I do have a background in formal semantics though I've forgotten most of it).
> to the extent where your message is warped and difficult to understand.
Seriously, what in my original post was 'difficult to understand'?
> Every language has rules. Without those rules, you don't have an effective or usable language.
Unlike French (Académie française), Italian (Accademia della Crusca), Spanish (Real Academia Española), German (Gesellschaft für deutsche Sprache) there is no central authority for English. This means that English does not have rules as such, it has conventions. The conventions, which includes spelling and grammar, change through usage.
> Unlike French ...
English has found it preferable to have a catalogue tracking its actual usage, thus allowing the language to grow and evolve rather than be tied down.
Of course these changes upset those of us who acquired their experience at an earlier time or in a different place.
Minor nit:
Rather than saying there are limits to what people need to know, I'd say the threshold for basic understanding is fairly low and can mostly be learned by listening and reading without formal training.
Otherwise spot on.
I'd also note that English does make it rather harder to notice some of the distinctions you learn in formal training. Therefore learning a "foreign" language in a formal setting, especially the Romance languages helps one understand the English rules better. I've forgotten almost all of my Latin, Spanish, and German, but my enhanced understanding of English remains.
No, 'English' when used to describe either the language or the people originating from England is a proper noun, not a pronoun and is therefore capitalized.
The danger of being the pedant, which I now risk as well, is to make sure you are not in error when making a correction.
If the word is written lower case I believe it refers to the spin one imparts to a spherical object in sports or leisure activities. For example, one might impart english to a cue ball in pool to make a trick shot. Of course, that might be a local idiom and non-standard usage.
"I am well published and have been researching, writing and doing formal presentations for the past few decades but believe me I have no idea what "first-person pronoun" is."
In that case you might be well published but you haven't published well. First person means the subject, generally 'I' or 'me', second is 'you' and third is 'he', 'she', 'him', 'her', 'it'. I (first person) learned that at school. What were you (second person) doing when we (first person plural) were taught that?
Please be understanding. Grammar has been removed from the curriculum in the UK, it is considered useless - one of my English professors from the UK was unable to answer one of the questions I had about English grammar, dismissing the question with: "We are no longer taught grammar at school, so I have no idea."
"My first language is English. In fact, my only language is English."
"I have no idea what "first-person pronoun" is"
There is some connection between these two sentences.
I was in school in the UK in the 60's and 70's and they never taught us the parts of speech, just some vague blather about verbs and nouns. Being unable to describe the construction of a sentence in ones own language makes it near fucking impossible to be gramatically correct in other languages.
Thank you, fucking British education system, crippling your clients just to make things "easier".
"Dismissing someone who is leading the biggest and most important software project in existence . . . "
Who's dismissing Linus? Certainly not me. I'm suggesting that someone of his stature and coding ability could apply a little of that skill to what is simply another language. Also please note that the repeated use of the lower case pronoun was by Kay Sievers. I have the greatest respect for both of these people when it comes to software.
"Dismissing someone who is leading the biggest and most important software project in existence based on "he used naughty words mummy". Grow the fuck up."
Hmm. There are rather a lot of software projects in existence, far more than either of us know; so this is an extravagant and unfounded statement. I suspect that the code used to programme the firmware (which is just software at a level nearer "the metal", real time software code in automated power plants, military, nuclear and other systems could be considered important. After all, there are lots of UNIX variants and look-alikes and many of them would, do and did function perfectly well in the role played by Linux variants. One could argue even that GNU is more important as it provides software providing critical user interfaces for developers, designers and other users across many systems from Linux to OSX to Solaris to BSD to whatever you like.
But then, your hackneyed coarseness at the end may be intended as a hint that you are not serious or that you are very unsure of yourself and so think that the equivalent of drunken bellowing will prove your point.
Swearing at a child's baptism or First Communion is, probably, inappropriate if you aren't the child. But in a 'public' forum, why is that inappropriate?
'Most important software project in existence' and 'leading' are two highly subjective terms, but I'm not sure anyone who is just one letter away from a pubic forum site for curly hair fetishists has even a cunt hair of wiggle room to be telling anyone about perspective.
'That Welsh bitch with the swollen tits is licking herself in the way only those Welsh bitches do when they've had more than three inside at once' - 'That's right Tom, it is very distinctive behavior and as near as I can tell, a Welsh Corgi giving birth live has only happened here once before, at the 1941 Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show. Hope those parents watching have updated their metaphor libraries, there's not a single bird or bee or stork in here tonight'.
See, that ^^^ is perfectly appropriate. It's all about perspective, yeah... Just like from the perspective of the guy who has his name on the thing you're working on, and want recognition for, if you're fucking it up he's got all the right in the world to tell you to fuck off. Kay can get it straight, whine or just quit and go home, it isn't Kaylix, but it could be and that's the thing. Kay can stay, or Kay can go, but until he has his name on the tin it doesn't fucking matter.
Linus Torvalds is a creepy little man I would have put into orbit if he was on the same continent as my daughter, but we have an understanding, so it's not an issue. I also think he has outlived his usefulness and is now serving as the best possible representation of what business people despise about Linux and until he goes away or somebody kicks the box out from under him and he's hidden by the podium the entire Linux movement is being denied the commercial support it so desperately needs so that 'free' isn't the only thing the general public thinks when they hear 'Linux'. But again, doesn't fucking matter, it's his name on the box. He can tell people to fuck off, or not, that's his call.
@Don Jefe " the entire Linux movement is being denied the commercial support it so desperately needs so that 'free' isn't the only thing the general public thinks when they hear 'Linux'. "
Red Hat, SuSE and Novell, all of them sell commercial Linux support, from the kernel up to font rendering in the browser. And those are just the three largest companies that do Linux support. There are many more.
So, what the hell are you talking about?!
If you mistook my comment for a swipe at Linux that wasn't what I intended. I had a bit of a poke at Linus, not Linux. I have to say I've been impressed with the maturation of Linux, the technical achievements are solid, but I'm most impressed that the entire Linux community hasn't accidentally killed itself in a misguided attempt to find some form of functional structure. It said it before and I'll say it again, I was, very, publicly wrong in my forecast of the development community's ability to find any sort of functional structure. I honestly didn't think any of the communities could maintain cohesion when there was so very little incentive for them to do so. I was wrong.
But selling support commercially and commercial support are wildly different things. We'll just run with Red Hat as the example: Red Hat sells support commercially for their flavor of Linux, but as tech companies go, they don't have a lot of commercial support and that's directly reflected in their revenue.
Everybody likes to point to the big name companies that run various flavors of Linux internally, but the Enterprise market is a wee, tiny portion of the market within any country or the entire planet. About 75%(ish) of all global revenue is generated by companies with less than 300 employees (less than 40 employees in the US) and guess what 85-90% of those companies use internally? It isn't Linux.
Before you get all defensive, that wasn't a Linux vs anything but itself comment. Linux is its own worst enemy. Linux is perceived by the overwhelming majority of the global business community as a thing that weird tech companies and the fat guy with the unkempt look and some sort of mobile recycling center in his car use for whatever it is they do.
Don't get me wrong, I find great humor in the fact that many scathing comments about Linux are composed on Android devices and served up on Apache for all the world to see, but what don't you see there? I realize what Apache is, but the point is still valid, nobody likes to say Linux. Even the 'LAMP' box fad came and went quickly. It's still a LAMP box, sure, but the term hasn't hung around like 'cloud' has.
That's the bitch about perception. You have to manage it, or it manages you, and that's what has happened with Linux. Take a look, even here on El Reg, what are the bulk of the Linux stories about? Either some technical thing that's already been covered by 9.765M other sites, or the latest antics of a Finnish Gnome with poor choices in suits (or tailors) and little understanding of group dynamics. There aren't many business related stories or investment related stories about Linux. Why? Android has plenty of those stories. Why not Cinnamon or MangoEarwax or whatever?
There are a lot of reasons, but one is Linus Torvalds himself and another is the totally ridiculous ways the very vocal community gets attention drawn to itself. Look at that guy up there with the 'Most important software project in existence' comment. That's extreme extremism and business just doesn't want that, it's fucking weird.
It's also a major element in the mess that saw every significant VC group and high risk investment firm move as far away from desktop Linux as they could get. Maybe the trees are blocking your view of the forest, but go take a gander at the most prevalent people say 'Linux is the best'. Go ahead, go take a look. What did you find? Yep. 'Free'.
Commercial support and 'free' don't mix and the fact the Linux community consistently misses that is just fucking sad. It's worse than sad, it's the behavior of insane people. THE SAME PEOPLE who run around screaming 'Windows is a ripoff, software should be free' are the same people camped out at the NoScript Socialist Club singing the glee clubs latest rendition of 'we are people, not a product' and laughing with excitement every time Facebook announces a new way to fuck users faster.
What's the message there? 'Free is bad unless it's Linux? You'll know you've hit the big time when Lilliputian software developers in apparently stolen clothes castigates you in public for your shitty contributions to the only 'free commercial computer operating system'? Good fucking luck with that pal. I've spun some serious bullshit but not even I can do anything with abortion of a desirable concept.
Again, the Linux community has surprised me before, maybe they'll do so again. Stranger things have happened. But until somebody gets in there and takes the reins of perception management the technical aspects of Linux are going to continue being marginalized with mass general adoption of (flavor)Linux, not Android or some other disguise, being no closer than it has been these last few decades.
It's no different than anything else, as any product matures and evolves, those who control/lead it must change and evolve as well. The transitions must happen together as well. If you change leadership but not the product it won't work, ask RIM. If you change the product but not the leadership, that won't work either: See Windows 8 for more information. Click the 'Start' button to...
Those things don't work because they are change for the sake of change. Attempting to force something instead of going with the flow and taking advantage of the free momentum. Linux has for the first time, in my opinion, reached a point where real momentum exists. Not the idealistic delusions of momentum, but an actual system, accelerating under its own power and it's a great time to begin rolling in some professionalism and actually participating in the markets and economies as a viable entity instead of being the lurker in the corner at all the parties.
Professionalism doesn't mean not swearing at people, or not threatening people's families with violent deaths, not at all. Professionalism means you do those things behind closed doors so as not to embarrass anyone or be implicated in missing persons cases. Professionalism means talking about what you offer, and why it has value. There's nothing wrong with value. There's nothing wrong with actually making a living doing what you enjoy versus doing what you hate/for who you hate so you can afford to go home and do the same thing, but for free.
There's this idea that a successful software company has to be worth zillions of dollars and be full of Elisions and Gates and Jobs', that's not correct. It can be a place full of geeks who aren't (all) dicks, still make scads of money, not 'sell out' or make your actual profits selling use data to Amazon, and I want to know, what's wrong with that? It would seem to me the problem is on the people, not the technology.
Microsoft had a policy of ranking staff and automatically firing those at the bottom so what exactly is your point here ?
And why the hell do you care so much about Linux to come here and preach us about marketing and professionalism ? It's free and you're free using it so if you like it please stop enlightening us and if you don't, then move to Windows and we can still be friends.
By the way, in case you didn't get it, there is no Linux behind close doors because each time something is hiding behind closed doors, it is not for the public good.
While I fully agree with you (and I mean completely), the idea of being able to sell an image change (to change inbound perceptions) to the "Linux Crowd" still seems a bit distant. My own perception of "black-hatting" generally involves a geek (like myself) or group of geeks, chatting it up using some obscure or even, unknown, platform whilst preparing to "dominate" this or "pwn" that...from some slef-brewed Linux derivative.
From a "professional" and "business-like" perspective, I don't want a system in my organization, running a platform that the most devious of us know all too well how to compromise...better than how my own security team knows how to protect.
Linux is that image...I hope you are right and that they are on the upswing - it's a great system, once the negative image is no longer in view...
There is nothing wrong with those words. If you reduced the swear words you use to make room for a broader vocabulary, you would know that a female dog is properly called a bitch; in this context, to say a dog was giving birth would be the equivalent of describing a woman as a man giving birth. These commentators are commenting on an event for professional dog breeders and showers, so they use the standard, English terms.
I am aware that USA English emphasises the derogatory usage (why not the same for "cow" or "pig" I wonder?); but this is an international forum set up by a British entity, so I assume that British English is the basic standard even if the editors are too lazy or permissive to edit USA-source material in the way they would with, e.g., French or Russian or Pidgin.
In short, ignorance and bad language are inappropriate in most contexts, formal or informal and simply alienate even those who may agree with the writer or speaker while distracting from the point the person is trying to make and confirming the opponents in their view, as this thread shows.
If LT can not control himself and think of his audience, can I trust his judgement when designing software and user interfaces?
This post has been deleted by its author
"Dismissing someone who is leading the biggest and most important software project in existence based on "he used naughty words mummy". Grow the fuck up."
Your obvious bias shows with that comment, but leaving that aside, I'd say Obama is a more important person as a leader oof something, and I'm sure you wouldn't expect him to behave the same way.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
