Shut the F*ck up!!!

Squeaky the Squirrel

That got your attention.:D

So what do you make of your man Torvalds reply to a Linux kernel developer who made abit of a F-up releasing some dodgy patch.

https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/23/75

On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 6:08 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
<mchehab@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Are you saying that pulseaudio is entering on some weird loop if the
> returned value is not -EINVAL? That seems a bug at pulseaudio.

Mauro, SHUT THE **** UP!

It's a bug alright - in the kernel. How long have you been a
maintainer? And you *still* haven't learnt the first rule of kernel
maintenance?

If a change results in user programs breaking, it's a bug in the
kernel. We never EVER blame the user programs. How hard can this be to
understand?

To make matters worse, commit f0ed2ce840b3 is clearly total and utter
CRAP even if it didn't break applications. ENOENT is not a valid error
return from an ioctl. Never has been, never will be. ENOENT means "No
such file and directory", and is for path operations. ioctl's are done
on files that have already been opened, there's no way in hell that
ENOENT would ever be valid.

> So, on a first glance, this doesn't sound like a regression,
> but, instead, it looks tha pulseaudio/tumbleweed has some serious
> bugs and/or regressions.

Shut up, Mauro. And I don't _ever_ want to hear that kind of obvious
garbage and idiocy from a kernel maintainer again. Seriously.

I'd wait for Rafael's patch to go through you, but I have another
error report in my mailbox of all KDE media applications being broken
by v3.8-rc1, and I bet it's the same kernel bug. And you've shown
yourself to not be competent in this issue, so I'll apply it directly
and immediately myself.

WE DO NOT BREAK USERSPACE!

Seriously. How hard is this rule to understand? We particularly don't
break user space with TOTAL CRAP. I'm angry, because your whole email
was so _horribly_ wrong, and the patch that broke things was so
obviously crap. The whole patch is incredibly broken ****. It adds an
insane error code (ENOENT), and then because it's so insane, it adds a
few places to fix it up ("ret == -ENOENT ? -EINVAL : ret").

The fact that you then try to make *excuses* for breaking user space,
and blaming some external program that *used* to work, is just
shameful. It's not how we work.

Fix your f*cking "compliance tool", because it is obviously broken.
And fix your approach to kernel programming.

Linus

Goodshape

Nothing new there really. Linus is never one to hold back.

From the rest of the thread you linked to, doesn't look like Mauro took any offence.

GreenWolfe

That's Linus being Linus. Remember NVIDIA?

Squeaky the Squirrel

Not think he's abusing his position abit?

GreenWolfe

Squeaky the Squirrel wrote: »

Not think he's abusing his position abit?

I don't think so, the people he works with know he's like this. Maintainers are there so that Linus doesn't have to work until breaking point and he can guide development at a higher level (google "linus doesn't scale").

I think it's only that the development process is so open that things like this come to light. I'm quite sure that the same happens in many other software companies and organisations, just that it isn't so public.

It's so refreshing to see someone at the top level that doesn't spout political bullshít answers and actually says what he thinks.

Johnboy1951

I think he was way over the top.

It is one thing to guide, admonish and manage.

It is something else to abuse and bully and publicly humiliate (or attempt to) another.

I agree with what he was saying ...... but most definitely disagree with HOW he said it.

Lucky for him he does not do this in a face-to-face confrontation. He would soon get slapped silly!

IMO, Linus 'needs an attitude adjustment'.

[-0-]

Linus is an ass.

Khannie

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I think he was way over the top.

It is one thing to guide, admonish and manage.

It is something else to abuse and bully and publicly humiliate (or attempt to) another.

I agree with what he was saying ...... but most definitely disagree with HOW he said it.

Lucky for him he does not do this in a face-to-face confrontation. He would soon get slapped silly!

IMO, Linus 'needs an attitude adjustment'.

This about sums it up for me. Very poor management. Very poor.

limnam

Khannie wrote: »

This about sums it up for me. Very poor management. Very poor.

Depends on how you gauge his management. I have to say I'm a fan of both Theo and Linus's style. If we use kernel commits as the gauge I think his management style is obviously very very effective. There's one thing that's certain Mauro won't make that mistake again.

Khannie

limnam wrote: »

Depends on how you gauge his management. I have to say I'm a fan of both Theo and Linus's style. If we use kernel commits as the gauge I think his management style is obviously very very effective.

As someone who's been on the receiving end of demoralisation by poor management, I can say that kernel commits are probably not the best gauge. Happy developers are good developers. That's why valve treat their employees so well. It's a positive feedback cycle.

limnam wrote: »

There's one thing that's certain Mauro won't make that mistake again.

Agreed. It could have been achieved in the same way with the same email but privately. If I saw that in an email chain in my company I'd think "Dick. You should have removed people from the CC list". When I see it in public on the internet I think "what the f*ck is wrong with you?".

limnam

Khannie wrote: »

As someone who's been on the receiving end of demoralisation by poor management, I can say that kernel commits are probably not the best gauge. Happy developers are good developers. That's why valve treat their employees so well. It's a positive feedback cycle.



Agreed. It could have been achieved in the same way with the same email but privately. If I saw that in an email chain in my company I'd think "Dick. You should have removed people from the CC list". When I see it in public on the internet I think "what the f*ck is wrong with you?".

This is not a private company tho. When you decide to work and code in the open source community you sign up to all that entails including being critiqued in the open. There's no question that Linus could have managed the situation differently but I don't think he or Theo would get the results they do from being "nice". There is very long line of talented coders who would chop your arm off to be in Mauro's position. Linus doesn't need to care if Mauro is happy or not, he needs to make sure he's focused on what he's doing and as I said. You can be pretty damn sure Mauro is now focused.

Johnboy1951

you sign up to all that entails including being critiqued in the open

There is a large difference between being critiqued and being abused .... and this exchange was abusive.

limnam

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

There is a large difference between being critiqued and being abused .... and this exchange was abusive.

Mauro is free to walk away at anytime if he is not happy with how Linus manages. I'm sure friendly easy going kernel maintainers are two to a penny

who_me

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

There is a large difference between being critiqued and being abused .... and this exchange was abusive.

Exactly. He'd be out on his ear if he sent that email in our company.

Better to have a happy, productive team; than 1 superb developer with a demotivated team that's terrified ****less of making a mistake.

limnam

who_me wrote: »

Exactly. He'd be out on his ear if he sent that email in our company.

Better to have a happy, productive team; than 1 superb developer with a demotivated team that's terrified ****less of making a mistake.

As he would in probably any company. This is not a company.

Johnboy1951

limnam wrote: »

Mauro is free to walk away at anytime if he is not happy with how Linus manages. I'm sure friendly easy going kernel maintainers are two to a penny

That the recipient is free to walk away is no excuse for abuse.

Try applying that to any other social situation, such as spousal abuse, abuse of authority, school bullying etc etc and tell me where you would also put forward that 'walk away' excuse for the abuser!

limnam

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

That the recipient is free to walk away is no excuse for abuse.

Try applying that to any other social situation, such as spousal abuse, abuse of authority, school bullying etc etc and tell me where you would also put forward that 'walk away' excuse for the abuser!

I'm not giving it as an excuse I was pointing out the difference to a private salaried position. Lets not start rolling out battered wives as a comparison to Linus telling someone to shut fing up. All kernel maintainers know how Linus is and how he manages. They CHOOSE to. You can't go into a kitchen and work with Gordon Ramsey and then start crying he called you a c*nt. you knew before hand and mauro knows it, cox know it, they all know it. It's not their livley hood they're not forced to deal with him they CHOOSE to.

FruitLover

If Linus were (e.g.) the CEO of some random company then this would be pretty bad form, but a very important factor in this case is that Linux is his personal pet project, and he's been watching it grow from a hobbyist hack to where it is now over 20 years. He's deeply personally invested in it and when other contributors make a mistake, they're not just screwing up any old project, they're screwing up his baby.

GreenWolfe

limnam wrote: »

I'm not giving it as an excuse I was pointing out the difference to a private salaried position. Lets not start rolling out battered wives as a comparison to Linus telling someone to shut fing up. All kernel maintainers know how Linus is and how he manages. They CHOOSE to. You can't go into a kitchen and work with Gordon Ramsey and then start crying he called you a c*nt. you knew before hand and mauro knows it, cox know it, they all know it. It's not their livley hood they're not forced to deal with him they CHOOSE to.

Mauro Carvalho Chehab works for Red Hat, Linus Torvalds is part of the Linux Foundation and afaik Alan Cox still does Linux work for Intel.

limnam

EarthlyPangaea wrote: »

Mauro Carvalho Chehab works for Red Hat, Linus Torvalds is part of the Linux Foundation and afaik Alan Cox still does Linux work for Intel.

Which is irrelevant when there been told to shut up by Linus, He's not telling Mauro to shut up as Mauro's Red Hat Manager. I don't see what them having jobs has to do with this

humbert

Seems from that email that Linus was irked that the developer wasn't taking responsibility and instead was blaming userspace code for his bugs.

croo

I would wonder has the developer not followed protocol before or is this a first. At first read it would seem a little excessive - but all open source development is done in the public arena and in my experience this is not unusual. And these mailing-lists are more like delayed conversations rather than "correspondence". In this case, lThe fact that it's Linus Torvalds, unfortunately for this developer, means the whole world is probably reading but in many other projects I'm sure the same (and worse - I seen some really nasty arguments arise ) has been said but usually nobody cares.

Johnboy1951

croo wrote: »

I would wonder has the developer not followed protocol before or is this a first. At first read it would seem a little excessive - but all open source development is done in the public arena and in my experience this is not unusual. And these mailing-lists are more like delayed conversations rather than "correspondence". In this case, lThe fact that it's Linus Torvalds, unfortunately for this developer, means the whole world is probably reading but in many other projects I'm sure the same (and worse - I seen some really nasty arguments arise ) has been said but usually nobody cares.

It doesn't matter how many commit an abuse/felony/murder/whatever ...... the act is still wrong ...... regardless excuses.

There is no doubting that Linus abused the developer and I (personally) do not see any reason to excuse his behaviour any more than if the abuse was the other way about.

croo

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

It doesn't matter how many commit an abuse/felony/murder/whatever ...... the act is still wrong ...... regardless excuses.

There is no doubting that Linus abused the developer and I (personally) do not see any reason to excuse his behaviour any more than if the abuse was the other way about.

Let he with no sin throw the first stone...
Everyone loses it now and then and in the open source when they do it's just happens that everyone (who wants to) gets to see.
But, it's always difficult to judge posts to a ML in isolation like this ... our reading of it will always be very subjective. You'd really have to see the whole discussion to have any hope of knowing what the intent was but it could just as easily be someone venting their frustration as trying to abuse another. And I don't think you can compare your typical working environment to an open source project - a better comparison might be to look at the language/discourse during a game of football (or whatever you team sport of preference is).

Goodshape

croo wrote: »

Everyone loses it now and then and in the open source when they do it's just happens that everyone (who wants to) gets to see.

This.

A project/company/business leader loosing their cool every now and then is hardly shocking. When Balmer throws a chair, or Steve Jobs is an asshole to everyone around him, they can still smile and put on a good show for the public.

But Linus' work doesn't have that divide. His boardroom is open, public, and logged. I appreciate that he's passionate and so long as the product is good, I think loosing his cool and throwing in a few bad words every now and again is hardly even worth commenting upon.

Zombrex

It would have been perfectly possible for Linus to get across the point (that you never blame user programs for bugs in the kernal) without being an ass.

I hate this attitude in IT that if you are clever or whatever then this excuses rude abusive behaviour. I encounter it all the time and people just say "Oh well yes but he's brilliant" or "a guru". Yes, and he is also a dick.

Its the Steve Jobs/Jeff Bezos/Bill Gates syndrome, the idea that if you are clever you must also be an ass hat. In reality the clever non-ass hats just don't make as much noise.

Johnboy1951

croo wrote: »

Let he with no sin throw the first stone...
<snip>

It is not about stone throwing ...... it is about calling it as it is, regardless WHO the disk-head is, what position he holds, what he has done or is ever likely to do.

Abusive behaviour should be unacceptable from ANYone.

syklops

who_me wrote: »

Exactly. He'd be out on his ear if he sent that email in our company.

Your telling me if a founding member of the company swore in an email he'd be fired? I doubt that. Linus isn't just anyone. He wrote the original Linux kernel. He knows whats he's talking about.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure in context, this email would make more sense. I'd wager good money this email followed a heated discussion over IRC.

Johnboy1951

syklops wrote: »

Your telling me if a founding member of the company swore in an email he'd be fired? I doubt that. Linus isn't just anyone. He wrote the original Linux kernel. He knows whats he's talking about.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure in context, this email would make more sense. I'd wager good money this email followed a heated discussion over IRC.

Speculation ...... and also irrelevant.

You reckon being a 'founding member' gives him some right to abuse others ..... or some 'context' would do so?

:rolleyes:

croo

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

It is not about stone throwing ...... it is about calling it as it is, regardless WHO the disk-head is, what position he holds, what he has done or is ever likely to do.

Abusive behaviour should be unacceptable from ANYone.

I am not sure it is abusive! Is it because HE SHOUTED or because he swore or because he put the committer straight on protocol in public? Which part of the post is it that is abusive? I often shouted & swore at fellow team players in public... when playing 5 aside football... nobody felt abused! It all depends on context and none of us here have that from the small excerpt we have.

syklops

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Speculation ...... and also irrelevant.

You reckon being a 'founding member' gives him some right to abuse others ..... or some 'context' would do so?

:rolleyes:

You keep using the word abuse. He told him to STFU over email when he was talking rubbish. Hardly cyber bullying now is it?

And no, I dont think being a founder gives him the right to abuse people, but someone said that had it been a company he would have been fired. Yes, if it was a company and Linus was a regular employee he would be in hot water, but he wrote the original kernel and he has managed the project for over 20 years. He would have to torture kittens or something before he gets ostracised from the community.

I really don't understand the point of this thread. Its like something from a primary school play ground. "Oh my god, he said the F-word! In an email! How dare he?!?"

Khannie

syklops wrote: »

You keep using the word abuse. He told him to STFU over email when he was talking rubbish. Hardly cyber bullying now is it?

No, he told him to STFU in front of potentially millions of people. It's not quite the same as dropping him a mail. If he had sent the same mail privately the same thing would have been achieved without him looking like a cock, tbh.

syklops

Khannie wrote: »

No, he told him to STFU in front of potentially millions of people. It's not quite the same as dropping him a mail. If he had sent the same mail privately the same thing would have been achieved without him looking like a cock, tbh.

I'd feel the opposite tbh. I'd rather get that kind of "abuse" in an open way that others can see. If I got a private, 1 to 1 email from someone "abusing" me, it would feel more targeted and personal.

Khannie

Each to their own, but I'd say you're in a minority there. The bollocking feeling compounded by others being aware of it IMO. Certainly I believe that, in general, a bollocking is probably a bad idea. If you need to shout and curse and swear at someone in a professional capacity then you're probably not very professional.

syklops

Khannie wrote: »

Each to their own, but I'd say you're in a minority there. The bollocking feeling compounded by others being aware of it IMO. Certainly I believe that, in general, a bollocking is probably a bad idea. If you need to shout and curse and swear at someone in a professional capacity then you're probably not very professional.

We are not talking about a in professional capacity. Linux and kernel.org are community-based projects. I'm in work and Im wearing suit trousers and a white shirt. If I went to an ILUG meeting, no-one would care what I wore, but in work I have to remain professional looking(whatever the hell that means). People seem to be having trouble understanding that while Red Hat is a company, Linux is not.

To compare, Ive been to soccer matches where the coach eff'ed at the team. While maybe not the best way to go about coaching a team,but it is still acceptable. What would not be acceptable would be the coach taking one player aside and cursing him out of it. That would be a big no no.

limnam

Khannie wrote: »

Each to their own, but I'd say you're in a minority there. The bollocking feeling compounded by others being aware of it IMO. Certainly I believe that, in general, a bollocking is probably a bad idea. If you need to shout and curse and swear at someone in a professional capacity then you're probably not very professional.

The majority probably work in a warm, sweet and fluffy enviroment. This has nothing to do with companies or professionalism not sure why people keep referring to companies. It's not a company and getting a bollocking in public is the nature of the code in public beast.

I think we're being a tad oversensitive here. The guy made a school boy error with years of experience and tried to pawn the blame on someone else and got told where to go.

This really is a non issue.

mooonpie

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Speculation ...... and also irrelevant.

You reckon being a 'founding member' gives him some right to abuse others ..... or some 'context' would do so?

:rolleyes:

There's a subtle difference between 'a' founding member and 'the' founding member. As has been said, the kernel is Linus' baby and he has final say.

Khannie wrote: »

No, he told him to STFU in front of potentially millions of people. It's not quite the same as dropping him a mail. If he had sent the same mail privately the same thing would have been achieved without him looking like a cock, tbh.

And when another maintainer repeats a similar mistake in a months time he can deal with them 1 on 1 privately too, or he can send one over the top mail highlighting a point to ALL Kernel maintainers (and possible future maintainers) and nobody makes the mistake for a long time.

If you read the rest of the thread you can see that Mauro sends a rational reply, agrees with many of Linus' points and gives some background to the situation. He's not that traumatised by the whole ordeal

Besides it's a very valid and important point that should be highlighted to all kernel hackers - don't make changes that affect userspace without plenty of discussion and agreement

syklops

moonpie9588 wrote: »

Besides it's a very valid and important point that should be highlighted to all kernel hackers - don't make changes that affect userspace without plenty of discussion and agreement

And not just kernel hackers. udevd recently changed the naming convention for network interfaces. What has been eth0 for decades is now called em1, thereby braking scripts the world over. Scripts written 20 years ago, by people now retired from the IT industry are failing with the error: "eth0: error fetching interface information: Device not found". Thank you udevd.

croo

syklops wrote: »

And not just kernel hackers. udevd recently changed the naming convention for network interfaces. What has been eth0 for decades is now called em1, thereby braking scripts the world over. Scripts written 20 years ago, by people now retired from the IT industry are failing with the error: "eth0: error fetching interface information: Device not found". Thank you udevd.

Nice. :eek:
I wasn't aware of that change, I'll have to be vigilant.

[-0-]

Mauro's explanation here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/24/125

oscarBravo

syklops wrote: »

And not just kernel hackers. udevd recently changed the naming convention for network interfaces. What has been eth0 for decades is now called em1, thereby braking scripts the world over. Scripts written 20 years ago, by people now retired from the IT industry are failing with the error: "eth0: error fetching interface information: Device not found". Thank you udevd.

To be fair though, any script that assumed the only interesting network interface card in the system is called "eth0" is broken, and has been since it was written.

We've been bitten several times by the fact that network interface numbering is non-deterministic. At least an interface that's called em1 the first time it comes up will always be called em1; having an interface that was eth3 become eth1 after a reboot is a pretty nasty situation.

syklops

oscarBravo wrote: »

To be fair though, any script that assumed the only interesting network interface card in the system is called "eth0" is broken, and has been since it was written.

We've been bitten several times by the fact that network interface numbering is non-deterministic. At least an interface that's called em1 the first time it comes up will always be called em1; having an interface that was eth3 become eth1 after a reboot is a pretty nasty situation.

Fair point.