# Linus Torvalds defends his right to shame Linux kernel developers



## cpm@ (Jul 17, 2013)

Hi people, today I bring this article published in Ars Technica not without controversy among Linux kernel developers: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/linus-torvalds-defends-his-right-to-shame-linux-kernel-developers/

Comments for and against about the subject of the matter are welcome. 

Best regards.


----------



## fonz (Jul 17, 2013)

It makes me chuckle. Linus has never been known to be very subtle or diplomatic. And I'm inclined to say that to some extent that's his right as long as Linux remains _his_ "project". I do find it a bit funny that Linus would describe Theo de Raadt as "difficult", while in practice I've come to get the impression that Theo is actually more pleasant to deal with than Linus


----------



## ShelLuser (Jul 18, 2013)

My opinion on the matter is simple: it's a downwards spiral and if he continues to do "his thing" it's only going to get worse. Not today, not tomorrow, but when the time comes that the hype blows over (and sooner or later that time IS going to come, I just hope it doesn't come this way *) then he may suddenly realize that there isn't much support left.

Lets not forget that the only reason this got more attention was because Ms. Sharp started to wonder if Linus actually knew what abuse really is. Ms. Sharp is the first to speak up, and that is more than often all it takes to stir the pot good.

Why I think this is a downwards spiral? Because at first it really was SHOUTING which was going on (I hope you guys can forgive the capitals ). Followed up by swearing which in its turn got followed up by swearing in Finnish (which, when translated, would actually end up even more abusive than anything been said before). Am I the only one to notice a pattern here?

I sincerely doubt that all developers put up with it because they are ok with it, I think most put up with it because if they don't then they'll lose their ground. What that 'ground' is depends on the person; either prestige for working on the project, a line of trust of getting things committed without too many questions asked, or even a demand to remain "in place" because of other (sometimes commercial) interests.

At the time of writing there's only one Linux kernel.

As such I think Linus doesn't realize that he's not talking amongst equals, even though he himself may think that he is.

Still, in the end it's all speculation, I realize that all too well. Even so; this is a first, and quite frankly I think we're on an intersection right now. Either Linus binds in a little or carries on as usual. But if he does and targets Ms. Sharp then I think we have a collision in the making. And when that happens I think we'll really learn for ourselves where people's loyalties really are. I honestly hope it doesn't come to that because I get a feeling it's going to be destructive (never underestimate what impact even minor damage can have commercial wise).

* Nothing negative on my account but right or wrong I honestly think that one thing which made FreeBSD what it is today is that it didn't have to "suffer" from the hype Linux is. Meaning: People getting attracted because of what the project stands for and not so much the project itself. Take away the attention for said project and these people are the first to leave.


----------



## wblock@ (Jul 18, 2013)

It's bad for morale to have that kind of "style".  Bad for results, too.


----------



## fonz (Jul 18, 2013)

@ShelLuser:

That sounds like a fair assessment, but I'm not sure I agree with all of it.

Although surely some people still see Linux as "a toy for long-haired hippie geeks", over time it has become a notable player on the desktop market (and like it or not, I think much of that can be credited to Ubuntu). I think Linux has become too significant to just go away, which means that to some extent (there are limits of course) Linus can get away with his attitude.

That doesn't mean I'm trying to justify said attitude, I just think that he can afford to be like that. And what's more, he probably knows he can.


----------



## throAU (Jul 18, 2013)

His tree.
His rules.

Don't like it?  Fork.  Prove he is wrong by doing better.

Not saying I agree with his methods entirely (or not).  But how he leads *his own project* is his perogitive.  Thus far, since 1991 his track record in terms of shipping code is pretty good.  This behavior by Linus is not new.  He's been pretty arrogant since 1991, just look up his thread with Tannenbaum - his professor whilst still a student.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jul 18, 2013)

My Philosophy:


> I .. don't .. care.


----------



## mix_room (Jul 18, 2013)

Personally I like clear communication. I prefer it when feed-back is direct and to the point. If someone thinks that my work is substandard, I want them to tell me. Preferably with a way in which I can improve it, but if that isn't possible then so be it.  There are few things which irritate me as much as veiled suggestions of criticism that I need to try to decipher.

I guess I'm more on the Linus Torvalds side of things here. I will tell people if I think there work is garbage, and I'll tell them in that way. In return I accept criticism in this way as well. 

In my experience not being able to voice concerns, or having to rephrase them in a milder manner, leads to more discontent than voicing them angrily. At least in the long term.

In the end what you will need to have is moderation, and acceptance, on both ends of the spectrum. People who are loud and quick-tempered should try to adapt a little, but on the other hand those who are not should try to understand what is happening as well.


----------



## fluca1978 (Jul 18, 2013)

It's not the first time and it will not be the last. On the one hand I agree with Linus: he was able to drive Linux so far, therefore his methodology has proven to work. On the other hand I wonder what would happen if Theo joins the Linux kernel mailing list...


----------



## Dies_Irae (Jul 18, 2013)

He is right in the theory, but wrong in the method.

No matter how "sharp" (please, forgive the pun) is the way to express your thoughts in your culture: you have to think before you speak or write something. Respect before anything.

Said that, I agree with Torvalds, mainly here where he said:



> And I definitely am not willing to string people along, either. I've
> had that happen too - not telling people clearly enough that I don't
> like their approach, they go on to re-architect something, and get
> really upset when I am then not willing to take their work.



It's one of the main reasons (and probably _the_ main reason) I left the "Linux world" a few years ago: at that time I had the feeling that the developers were more focused on adding every "new feature of the day" as fast as they can, without taking the necessary time to debug and test them.

Now I must be clear: I'm not saying that Linux was "unstable", on the contrary I've never had any big problem and I was quite happy with it, but I've had the feeling that things were running too fast.

Several years ago Windows was a mess, and Linux was a sharp and sleek OS, but without most of the features/applications of the former. The more users come to Linux from Windows, the more the rate of "feature requests" increased and quickly become frantic.

Now I've switched to FreeBSD, and I have to admit that today I look at Linux nearly as I looked to Windows when I was a Linux user (by the way, I've heard rumors stating that Windows still exists, but I'm not completely sure :e).

Apart from this, Linux is a great OS, I think that they just need to "stop and think" for a moment. A bit longer would be better


----------



## NewGuy (Jul 18, 2013)

I think it is really sad that a lot of the people (not necessarily anyone here) defending Linus are doing so because they appear to feel the only way to be honest is also to be mean. It makes me wonder about their view of themselves and the world. I believe it is entirely possible to be direct, to be honest and (at the same time) to be kind.

People sometimes send me patches or feature requests and I try to treat those people with respect whether or not I agree with them. I don't have to name call and insult, in fact it would make me feel bad to do so to another person.

The way I see it, if we were talking about an office environment rather than a mailing list, people would be well within their rights to file harassment charges against many of the people on the Linux kernel mailing list. But since it's on-line some people seem to feel it is okay to be mean to others. I don't understand that mentality. It's why I don't contribute to the Linux project, I have too much self respect to allow myself to be treated the way Linus feels people should be treated.

In this instance I think Sarah did a good thing by pointing out that the Linux mailing list is poisoning itself. It's turning people away and making sure that the ideas of thick-skinned people are getting attention rather than the best ideas.

Some people have said it's Linus' kernel so he gets to run it how he wants. There is truth to that, but it doesn't mean he should be given a free pass to insult his colleagues.


----------



## blixto (Jul 18, 2013)

Linus is quite an eccentric person.


----------



## Dies_Irae (Jul 18, 2013)

NewGuy said:
			
		

> It's why I don't contribute to the Linux project, I have too much self respect to allow myself to be treated the way Linus feels people should be treated.



Moreover, the people he insults are the same that had contributed to make him (and his kernel) famous. He has the typical attitude of a politician, the only difference is that he is clever and knows how to do his job.


----------



## jrm@ (Jul 18, 2013)

Well put @NewGuy.

Here are some thoughts that come to my mind when I read this thread.





			
				&quot said:
			
		

> Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.



The Stanford Prison Experiment.
It also makes me reflect on (the current) privacy issues with governments.  While the intentions of these governments may be wholesome now, access to this information grants a lot of power.  Who knows if (how) that power will be respected in the future?


----------



## numpad5 (Jul 19, 2013)

Professors tend to be full of themselves these days, especially in computer science.

I am using Damn Small Linux a lot right now, I think Linus is a down to earth guy who can see right through the snob elitism of a lot of the university Ph. D. cliques.

More power to him!

Just watch "Gangs of New York" for an idea of the snob elitism I am talking about  it spreads to every level of society in some way.

Point being, why say "the extremitism point value of the technicality waveform slope has reached infinite" when you can just say, "oops, integer divide by zero!"

Intuition is key to intelligence, there would be no point in computers if every person was a walking computer, the point of computers is to serve man as a tool and not the other way around.


----------



## Chris_H (Jul 19, 2013)

I'm a _firm_ believer in being direct. If I've learned nothing else, I've learned this much. It is not so much the things you say in life, that get you into trouble, but the things you _don't_ say.

That said; there's no reason to be cruel (cruel is a relative term). But being direct should be ones' goal. It's a great way to have some enlightening/stimulating conversations. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone. They can both know, and respect the fact they feel differently, and each others' opinion(s). Makes for some wonderful relationships/friendships -- attracts them too! 

Possibly to Linus' humble defense; if one spends too much time programming, one begins to think in "binary" terms.

This was not an attempt to defend Linus, not to say I _agree_ with him -- just saying. 

--chris


----------



## throAU (Jul 19, 2013)

fluca1978 said:
			
		

> On the other hand I wonder what would happen if Theo joins the Linux kernel mailing list...



Would be a case of my above post.

Put up.
Shut up.
OR
Fork.


edit:
I think people also need to take Linus' posts in context.  This is to the LKML, where he has been dealing with people sending him broken patches for over 2 decades.  I don't follow the list any more, but presumably people professionally involved in Linux kernel development should know well by now what is and is not "on".  If they still violate the policy, then perhaps a strongly worded nastygram is justified.

This isn't Linus paying out on some noob on a beginner user support forum.  The people responsible for integrating patches into the mainline kernel really should know better.


----------



## Savagedlight (Jul 19, 2013)

throAU said:
			
		

> This isn't Linus paying out on some noob on a beginner user support forum.  The people responsible for integrating patches into the mainline kernel really should know better.



I don't see how Linus' swearing/name-calling added anything to the otherwise strong and constructive message. I'd rather say it made me take the message less seriously.


----------



## Chris_H (Jul 19, 2013)

Savagedlight said:
			
		

> I don't see how the swearing/name-calling added anything to the otherwise strong and constructive message. I'd rather say it made me take the message less seriously.



Indeed. Who gives a fsck() what he says. If you know your work is good. Just tell him to STFU, and use the patch. 

--chris


----------



## throAU (Jul 19, 2013)

Savagedlight said:
			
		

> I don't see how Linus' swearing/name-calling added anything to the otherwise strong and constructive message. I'd rather say it made me take the message less seriously.



Seriously?  Have you never sworn at anyone, ever in your life when you have been angry?

I know we're all meant to be politically correct these days, but if you seriously don't think profanity has more impact than a politely worded "please don't do that" I think you've lived a pretty sheltered existence.

All the guys have to communicate with is text.  There is very little context available.  Strong language exists and was developed for a reason - to express severe emotions.  Linus has had some pretty severe views on some of the things that have happened, and the language reflects that.

I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the management style, but strong language is merely a tool in a person's vocabulary.  Removing those words from one's vocabulary merely reduces the ability to clearly and concisely express the level of disgust with the situation.



edit:
As Linus says, there is no doubt a culture thing going on here.  I live in Australia, and colourful language is fairly commonly used here, when required.  I don't agree with Linus on a number of things, but I think he is correct in his view that watering down his response into PC corporate-speak will only result in the same thing being conveyed in a less clear way.  Clarity is paramount.  Why waste time skirting around the issue using PC language that could easily be mis-construed? Call a spade a spade and move on.

Just on context, as I mentioned above - maybe this sort of thing can be worked around via things like G+ hangouts.  If people are given emotional context via audio and video, they will more clearly understand the meaning behind the words used.

For example, I can tell someone "get f**ked" in several different ways - depending on tone, it can mean to genuinely leave me the hell alone, be a response of disbelief to something I find incredible, or a joking response to being teased in a joking manner.

Text has very little context available to make the distinction.  The same goes for non-profanity as well.  Actual meaning and importance can sometimes not be clear.


----------



## Crivens (Jul 19, 2013)

throAU said:
			
		

> I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the management style, but strong language is merely a tool in a person's vocabulary.  Removing those words from one's vocabulary merely reduces the ability to clearly and concisely express the level of disgust with the situation.
> ...
> 
> Why waste time skirting around the issue using PC language that could easily be mis-construed? Call a spade a spade and move on.


There is a difference between calling a spade a spade or trying to emulate Sgt. Hartman when doing so. There is a difference between being direct, clear, and being rude. Rude is not, or very seldom, needed. When you manage something like Linus, then you *have* to learn some things. You have to extend your vocabulary when you are not able to tell someone something without being rude. 

Not being able to tell someone that his work is not improving the system without being rude may be his fault for not getting it when being told so politely. Not even trying to do it politely, and not even trying to improve your skills if you are unable to do this without being rude - that is *your* fault. And when your peers are starting to be annoyed as time goes by (as we see now with Linus), that is a sign of him not trying, or caring. Maybe he thinks, not neccesarily conciously, that he does not need to care. It's his show, so it's his way or the highway. But that could go wrong one day. 

As I mentioned in some other post, a good project leader takes care of what will happen should he himself drops off. But right now, the bus factor of Linux is pretty small. And in this case, the bus could be his own attitude. You may stop communicating with your team when you are in the Emergency Room or Intensive Care unit, but communication also stops when your peers give you the finger and stop listening.

To find the sweet spot in this communication is hard, and that spot is different for different people. For some coworkers, a silent 'Ha-hmm' and a raised eyebrow is enough to tell them they are currently doing something silly. For others, you'd need the verbal equivalent of a sledgehammer to make that clear. In a mailing list, you have to use the same tool for everyone. So you need to be aware of the fact that half the audience will either not get it or the other half will be offended. And the thing is, to find the sweet spot, you need to evaluate the feedback. People not getting it continue to bug you, people being offended often quietly leave. Feedback then comes from people which are seriously pissed off. That's whats going on there, I think. You only get back "they don't get it, they don't get it, they don't - what's this?" Congratulations, you now have lost half the audience. Those who quietly left and now those who are really fed up.

And that is one of the points which IMHO is against Linux and for *BSD (well, OpenBSD may be a bordercase). In Linux, you have more or less a 1:N communication. In *BSD, you have more of a network, a graph with high interconnection but has less fan out. This keeps communications more polite than the 1:N, it also is more fault tolerant, but it is lacking the '1' which can be a focus for fame and to admire. That's the pro for Linux and also it's bane. That is one of the reasons why I like the *BSD community better. The other development model attracts narcists, which are then more prone to the 'I know better than you' attitude. They would like to emulate the leader, be like him.

And one thing I know, I like those characters 'over there' and not 'around here'. So I have several reasons to call it a sad day when Linux starts to break apart.

Sorry for being so long winded on this, but I find it pretty interesting to muse about the impacts of social interaction mechanisms with software engineering.


----------



## mix_room (Jul 19, 2013)

Crivens said:
			
		

> Not being able to tell someone that his work is not improving the system without being rude may be his fault for not getting it when being told so politely. Not even trying to do it politely, and not even trying to improve your skills if you are unable to do this without being rude - that is *your* fault.


How many times should you tell someone something in a polite way? 1/10/100? I think we all agree that people should be constructively criticized the first time they do something wrong, especially if they don't know better. HOWEVER, if there is a case when someone keeps repeating the same mistake, or even worse, trying to get around taking responsibility for their own actions, I feel offended by that behavior. 



> In a mailing list, you have to use the same tool for everyone.


I disagree. For me a mailing list can be a discussion between two people held in public. In this case the boss was yelling at a worker in the break-room. Other people happen to hear it. If as a boss I know that the particular worker can take the yelling, then this is OK. If person C is offended by person B being yelled at by person A, then perhaps person C is the problem. 

I read most of the the thread that Sarah Sharp started, and I clearly see her point. In some places there were extremely crude and inappropriate insults directed directly at her as a person. HOWEVER there was also a lot of criticism related directly at the work and the implications of this work. There is a huge difference between saying that someone is 'silly' and that their choice was 'silly'. ('silly' is a place-holder for your favorite insult).

Taking criticism is as difficult as giving it. But unfortunately this is something that most people are never taught. When I was in high-school there was always plenty of talk about how to give criticism without making people feel bad, but there was never any talk of how to listen to the same criticism if it came in a poorly worded form.


----------



## Crivens (Jul 19, 2013)

mix_room said:
			
		

> How many times should you tell someone something in a polite way? 1/10/100? I think we all agree that people should be constructively criticized the first time they do something wrong, especially if they don't know better. HOWEVER, if there is a case when someone keeps repeating the same mistake, or even worse, trying to get around taking responsibility for their own actions, I feel offended by that behavior.


That is what I meant when I noted it might be their problem. You need also to work on your skills when spoken to, the same rules apply. Communication is a two way process, and refusing to listen is also rude.

But if one person does this, it does not give you the right to yell at the next one - as much as you might want to, but no.


			
				mix_room said:
			
		

> I disagree. For me a mailing list can be a discussion between two people held in public. In this case the boss was yelling at a worker in the break-room. Other people happen to hear it. If as a boss I know that the particular worker can take the yelling, then this is OK. If person C is offended by person B being yelled at by person A, then perhaps person C is the problem.


When we talk about professionals here, I disagree with that. Person A may think only to speak (yell) at B, but he is not. If I see a coworker being abused, I might move to aid him. It make be possible that C is the problem, but it may also be A for loosing his temper in front of people uninvolved.


			
				mix_room said:
			
		

> Taking criticism is a difficult as giving it. But unfortunately this is something that most people are never taught. When I was in high-school there was always plenty of talk about how to give criticism without making people feel bad, but there was never any talk of how to listen to the same criticism if it came in a poorly worded form.


Amen to that. Usually, the reaction might be to retailiate in kind. Then you have a fight on your hand (which no one may have wanted) and this will not only not help the issue at hand but also poison a lot of other things.


----------



## CurlyTheStooge (Jul 19, 2013)

I'm not sure what the fudge is all about. Sarah may be under the impression of getting a special treatment or a soft response to her bruhaha because of her gender, but sorry, she has managed to piss Linus off.

No offense to anybody but you can't expect anybody to just change because 'you' don't like their way of working.

In my dictionary, rude is what Theo is, not Linus, he's still on the edge.

Regards.


----------



## tingo (Jul 19, 2013)

Opinions - everybody has them.


----------



## cpm@ (Jul 20, 2013)

First and foremost, thank to all very much for your honest opinions. It's definitely, a problem that the Programming Community has, and therefore, could not be avoided (this must change). In fact, worst of all is the amount of inflammatory messages and threats that she is getting and also back to see this situation reproduced in the near future. Surely, what we would like is that this don't be so


----------



## zspider (Jul 21, 2013)

throAU said:
			
		

> His tree.
> His rules.
> 
> Don't like it?  Fork.  Prove he is wrong by doing better.
> ...



I agree. It's his project and the world has enough political correctness as it is, we really don't need any more.

In that link about Inflammatory Messages #1, I fail to see how that is considered a threat. Someone show me please.


----------



## cpm@ (Jul 21, 2013)

zspider said:
			
		

> In that link about Inflammatory Messages #1, I fail to see how that is considered a threat. Someone show me please.



Sorry for the misunderstanding 

As clarification: I omitted the literal Sharp's statement "_...Violence, whether it be physical intimidation, verbal threats or verbal abuse is not acceptable..._" that she wrote. I wanted to highlight what she considers and interprets about those messages.


----------



## sidetone (Dec 15, 2017)

So I take it, Linus is more of a self-centered brat than Steve Jobs was.

(responding to years old thread)


----------



## scottro (Dec 15, 2017)

Awake and bored, so also responding to 4 year old thread.  Apparently, Mr. Jobs was even more of a bully. He would stop someone, say what do you do here, and if they didn't give an answer he liked, fire them.  As Apple engineers are and were probably well paid, a much bigger deal. 
Sad to say, some studies show that bullies are often happier than the rest of us.  I guess it's pleasure in dominance.  I have worked for people who did seem to delight in it.


----------



## ShelLuser (Dec 15, 2017)

And well, the 'caving in' which I hinted at years ago is already somewhat happening. After his last rant where he called Google developers stupid morons (or something close enough) he followed up on that a few days later by apologizing. Makes you wonder what happened behind the scenes


----------



## Snurg (Dec 15, 2017)

scottro said:


> Sad to say, some studies show that bullies are often happier than the rest of us.  I guess it's pleasure in dominance.  I have worked for people who did seem to delight in it.


This is the nature of the narcissistic psychopath personality. The lack of empathy makes them unencumbered from moral qualms. And their self-righteousness makes them feeling all things justified that they do to others, there is no reflection.


ShelLuser said:


> And well, the 'caving in' ...


...is a thing psychopaths do only when they perceive something a real threat to their power. Usually by other power...


----------



## sidetone (Dec 15, 2017)

scottro said:


> Awake and bored, so also responding to 4 year old thread.  Apparently, Mr. Jobs was even more of a bully. He would stop someone, say what do you do here, and if they didn't give an answer he liked, fire them.


From what I remember of the movie, also realizing movies are usually factually incorrect, Steve Jobs was mean, and liked to cut corners in bargaining. Perhaps Linus is just an arrogant brat, and not as cruel as Jobs.


> Sad to say, some studies show that bullies are often happier than the rest of us.  I guess it's pleasure in dominance.  I have worked for people who did seem to delight in it.


That's a cheap substitute, not real happiness. Perhaps they are satisfied for a few moments, but that's called compensating, and what many of us call sad. It is also not very sustainable. I bet whoever did those studies had a bias to justify their own behavior, or they had Stockholm syndrome to justify someone else's behavior.


----------



## Deleted member 48958 (Dec 15, 2017)

sidetone said:


> So I take it, Linus is more of a self-centered brat than Steve Jobs was.
> 
> (responding to years old thread)


And what about  Bill Gates?


----------



## sidetone (Dec 15, 2017)

ILUXA said:


> And what about  Bill Gates?


_What about him?_

I started to mention him, then I deleted what I said. It was along the lines of, while if anyone was deserving of being undermined by Bill Gates, it was Linus Torvalds. But then again, saying so would undermine anyone's achievement, which is wrong. I guess no matter how much of a piece of crap someone is, doesn't mean they deserve to have their good contributions taken from them or undermined. In the case of Linus, he still got his deserved recognition for his work, but was undermined financially by Gates.

Linus Torvalds, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are on different parts of the jerk spectrum.

Bill Gates is a cheater, which is abusive, but he is not known for being verbally rude or verbally condescending like Jobs or Linus. It was more of, he undermined people to cheat, not to feed his emotions, except for his ego that had to do with what a dork like him could get. Bill Gates had emotional control, which is what helped him cheat.

I think we collectively know enough about those three silly characters.


----------



## scottro (Dec 15, 2017)

Actually, though he now seems to be trying to redeem himself with charity, he was also known as pretty bad to work for. (Of course, this is stuff from the Internet with no independent verification).  I remember one story, a coder said how one wouldgo into this office and start explaining something and he would seem to ignore them. Then he'd look up and say, That's the stupidest f******* thing I've ever heard at Microsoft.  This was allegedly fairly typical behavior.


----------



## sidetone (Dec 15, 2017)

scottro said:


> Actually, though he now seems to be trying to redeem himself with charity, he was also known as pretty bad to work for.


It seems like it, but I'm not really sure why he compensates by donating to charity. I think it's more of an ego thing, more than redeeming himself. Or maybe he intended from the beginning to rip people off, to establish himself in a position to give so much to charity. I don't understand the dork.


> (Of course, this is stuff from the Internet with no independent verification).  I remember one story, a coder said how one wouldgo into this office and start explaining something and he would seem to ignore them. Then he'd look up and say, That's the stupidest f******* thing I've ever heard at Microsoft.  This was allegedly fairly typical behavior.


I guess talking to Bill Gates was the stupid part. He probably used his ideas.


----------



## bookwormep (Dec 15, 2017)

For the Bill Gates deposition on the Microsoft antitrust case: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/

You get the sense that he is the proverbial mouse caught in the mousetrap, yet even here, he
realizes not much will happen to him anyway....so there is a silent callousness, as well.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/


----------



## hitest (Dec 16, 2017)

throAU said:


> His tree.
> His rules.



Agreed.  He has achieved amazing results since 1991.  The Linux development model continues to work.  He is unapologetically abrasive when he needs to be.


----------

