Linus Torvalds is Back in Charge of Linux (zdnet.com)

At Open Source Summit Europe in Edinburgh, Scotland, Linus Torvalds is meeting with Linux's top 40 or so developers at the Maintainers' Summit. This is his first step back in taking over Linux's reins. From a report: A little over a month ago, Torvalds stepped back from running the Linux development community. In a note to the Linux Kernel Mailing List (LKML), Torvalds said, "I need to change some of my behavior, and I want to apologize to the people that my personal behavior hurt and possibly drove away from kernel development entirely. I am going to take time off and get some assistance on how to understand people's emotions and respond appropriately." That time is over. Torvalds is back.

Whether he'll be a kinder and gentler Torvalds remains to be seen. In the Linux 4.19 announcement, Greg Kroah-Hartman, Linux's temporary leader and maintainer of the stable branch, wrote: "Linus, I'm handing the kernel tree back to you. You can have the joy of dealing with the merge window :)"

Comments

Step 1: Remove the Code of Cancer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 2: Admit that he was blackmailed and fuck all that bullshit he was forced to say.

Re:Step 1: Remove the Code of Cancer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because that kind of change doesn't happen at the flip of a switch. Either he was forced to, or he had some life changing event happen to him that caused him to rethink things. Either way, there is something bigger happening that we may never know about.

Re:Step 1: Remove the Code of Cancer.

[dfghjk]

"Look, the world is changing whether you like it or not. Linus Torvalds chose to roll with it."

And maybe he just realized he was wrong. This happens every day, even with people who feel entitled to exhibit sociopathic behaviors.

Perhaps he realized that reducing the frequency of the root cause assumed in all 3 of your examples, "terrible code", is what is needed. Abuse and contempt don't accomplish that, better developers and a better environment do. Better judgement also does, and perhaps he realizes he has some room for improvement there. Software development occurs all the time without this nonsense because many developers are adults.

But perhaps he doesn't. One thing's certain, sociopaths feel their actions are always justified. Maybe he's an irredeemable a-hole, like the OP, and maybe he's just finally growing up. A hostile work environment is nothing to be proud of and it's not clear that there's anything here to be proud of at all.

Re:Step 1: Remove the Code of Cancer.

[shaitand]

There is nothing constructive about walking on eggshells. People should take ownership of their own feelings. Feelings are valid, in the sense you feel them, it doesn't mean they are reasonable, appropriate, or fair. Even if they are reasonable and appropriate and fair they are still your responsibility and concern not those of others. If a person isn't feeling hateful and you feel they are hateful just because they are harsh, rough spoken, or insensitive, it is you who is wrong.

People who are so thinned skinned they get upset about any of your examples (outside of being disappointed in themselves for producing a poor result) are the ones who need training. They have problems with emotional stability.

"Linus will probably fall back to somplece between #1 and #3. And if you don't think thats a choice, you don't understand what that word means and have never had your family threatened by other people for what you SHOULD say."

SJW are threatening you and and your family for what they think you SHOULD say. Do you want to talk about actual emotional trauma, how about walking around terrified under constant threat of having your name and family being equated to the most genocidal monsters in human history? Every moment of every day any minor slip of SOMEONE ELSES inner thoughts and whimsical feelings potentially able to destroy your career and ability to provide for your family.

Re:Step 1: Remove the Code of Cancer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone stuck a gun to his head? Look, the world is changing whether you like it or not. Linus Torvalds chose to roll with it.

What's the alternative, spouting a bunch of bullshit nonsense about leading a revolution, and watching Linux get forked, and all the Corporate types (who are 95% of the devs now) follow the Kernel with the Best Code Of Conduct?

Not what happened. Perhaps the man got older and wiser - or just a little bit softer.
But I am sure he was not forced in any way or form. I browse the kernel mailing list from time to time. It is mostly the same names as 10 and 20 years ago. 'Corporate types' simply aren't a 95% majority - even if all the unknown names are such people. It is not an environment that would care about 'a code of conduct'. Linus may have decided to change his own style, there is no sign of a CoC being forced on anyone else.

It may be hard to understand, but Linus and the other lead developers are immune to the power tricks known from business. "Twist his arm"? Nope, he doesn't have a boss. Doesn't answer to a board. No can do. Shady backroom deals and partners suddenly changing side? Nope, Linux is not a business, it doesn't work that way. RedHat may be attacked in such a way - not Linux and not Linus himself. A real or fake metoo-attack, and threats of boycott unless he steps down? Haha. Some just don't get it. Linux is not dependent on a revenue stream, there is no money to shut off to shut things down. And while some businesses are involved - they are many and all independent of each other. Occationally, those who don't know better claims Linux has small market share, and will therefore go away soon. But that sort of reasoning is only valid for businesses depending on profit, where market share decides how effective your marketing can be. Linux does not depend on profit, and market share is irrelevant to its continued success. Which is why it doesn't disappear, and instead increase market share slowly over the decades. Hype requires continuous marketing, technical reputation among experts do not. Businesses with expenses need profits, a volunteer system do not.

Attacking Linux is not like attacking a business. It is more like attacking the church. History has seen such attacks - monarchs and communists has occationally decided to nationalise/confiscate church property. A type of attack that would wipe out even the largest business in a day - but the church never depended on property, and endured. So will Linux.

Re:Step 1: Remove the Code of Cancer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting description of SJW tactics. Such tactics won't work though. SJWs may think they scored an important point - but I don't think they will get any further. Linux development is still a meritocracy, SJWs hold no power over such organizations. Linux himself may have issued an apology - no "tought police" has been installed anywhere.

The mob attack only works when SJWs have time to install themselves in positions of power. But they aren't capable of real work, and so cannot get power in a true meritocracy. So they love infiltrating HR departments or leader positions (when capable of getting them) or steering committees. Committees are often seen as 'the boring stuff' so they can get in by volunteering - then they strike. But Linux development is a true meritocracy. There is no HR department (it is not a business anyway) and no steering committee. No power positions they can worm their way into, in order to ruin things or mess with individuals. One almost feel sorry for the SJWs in this case :-) . I am not sure they even tried - perhaps Linus just came up with his apology on his own.

Anything happen when he was gone?

[jellomizer]

I mean with the actual development of Linux? I seem to be getting regular kernel update.

Other then Linus trying to keep a cooler head, it was also a test to have Linux development controlled by someone else for a while to make sure it will still function, that all the support and infrastructure was in place.

If something happen to Linus, I really don't want to see the End of Linux.

Re: Anything happen when he was gone?

[Crashmarik]

Now lately in the news we see a lot of people getting put in jail or in general trouble for what they did when they were much younger. However they are not being repentant about it, just defiant about it. Thus not getting our sympathy.

B.S. if anything that's just people deciding that the inquisition and witch hunts are fine things if they get to do them and pick the targets Linus was targeted because he had a no nonsense style in running the project that bears his name.

Kinder? You mean smalltalk?

[houghi]

https://science.slashdot.org/s...

So it seems he is able to survive without smaltalk just fine.

So now you know that if you ask him a question you will get an anser, even if you don't like the answer. You will even get an answer without asking a question.

If you think it will be different, I have to ask: what have you been smoking?

Re:right

[azcoyote]

There's rarely a need to bring right and wrong into these matters, and an apology is basically an admission of guilt.

I've been pondering this a lot lately. As ridiculous as Trump is, his lack of remorse for anything and everything has shown a kind of fault line in the way in which today's culture has become a culture of blame. Most public figures, when confronted with something that brings public ire, try to apologize even if they don't really feel bad about it, because they think that apologies will diffuse the situation. But these days an apology is not just an admission of guilt; it's also an admission of weakness. It causes people to go in for the kill like a pack of wolves. Trump is just about the only person who can survive in such a situation, precisely because he refuses to apologize and simply "misremembers" what he said or did in a convenient way. Thus ironically it's the kind of witch hunt culture today that has helped to cement Trump's position. Every time people attack him, he shows his dominance by refusing to apologize.

This is visible, for example, in the difference between the affairs of Bill Clinton and Trump's tryst with Stormy Daniels. Now in terms of morality, both deeds are of course gravely sinful, despite being mutual (notwithstanding the illicit power dynamic in the case of Bill, though Hillary still refuses to acknowledge it). But looking at the cultural/political impact, apart from the question of right and wrong, it's fascinating how Trump is able to weather the storm simply by refusing to apologize. It's almost as if, in the public eye, it's the apology that constitutes the sin.