Being rational while delivering an emotive message almost always sanitises and diminishes its impact. In fact that quite often is the point. If you want / need to bare your fangs you might as well be honest about it. If Linus was indiscriminately being verbally forthright you might have a case; "offensive" words exist for a reason, Linus for the most part uses them wisely. Personally I'd much rather that people were honest and swore at me than be polite and backstab me. Sometimes the way to be most honest with people is to swear at them.
All Linus had to say was something along the lines of, "I lost 5 hours of my time because you didn't test compile your code. I trusted you to do this. I'm angry about the wasted time and breach of trust, so in future you need to test compile your code or I'm going to stop trusting you."
"Your commit broke the build because it contained something you knew was probably not okay. This is costing us money because it wastes everyone's time. If you do it again I'm going to have to revoke some privileges, because it's my responsibility as CEO to keep us afloat. Is there anything I don't understand about what happened so we can prevent this from happening again?"
This is hypothetical of course, a less severe response may be called for, and obviously it would be more of a conversation. It isn't nice and friendly, but it isn't abusive either.
That's something you would say to a young child who has not yet learned to tell right from wrong, not yet learned to consider the consequences of his actions, and has not yet learned to act considerately toward others. It is belittling to speak to an adult that way. I would find that far more abusive than simply being sworn at for committing an act of stupidity.
If I got a Linus style dressing down, I would be embarrassed. But I would not feel like I was being treated like a child. I'd feel that I'm being shown respect--it would mean he believes that I do have the knowledge and skill to do it right, and that I just for some reason was a complete idiot in this case, and so all he has to do is let me know just how much it annoyed him and I can take it from there. I would acknowledge that he was right, I was a fucking idiot, and make sure it did not happen again. We'd then both move on, with my only fear being that if I ever receive an award or am given a going away party when I retire or something like that where people might get up and tell embarrassing stories about me, I've given them one more.
And here's a rewrite that is shorter, conveys the same information, isn't patronizing, and avoids the "sins" (quotes because we apparently disagree) of the original:
I'm unwilling to discuss this further. The first rule of kernel maintenance is that if a change breaks userland, it's a kernel bug, full stop. WE DO NOT BREAK USERSPACE.
Additionally, commit f0ed2ce840b3 is incorrect. ENOENT isn't a valid ioctl return and never has been. ENOENT is reserved for path operations. ioctl works on descriptors and not paths; the use of ENOENT in this commit is incoherent.
It appears that this same kernel bug has broken all the KDE media applications. As a result, I must apply the fix directly and immediately myself.
Your incorrect patch which broke userspace combined with the confusion you caused by blaming the breakage on some external program is frustrating, and I expect not to have to deal with similar problems in the future.
The two problems I see with the original are:
(1) It's pointlessly emotional to its own detriment ("shut the fuck up" actually carries less information than "I'm unwilling to discuss this further", because "shut the fuck up" lacks finality) --- and is in this regard written in a way that only Linus Torvalds or someone of his status could get away with. It actually diminishes Torvalds --- as does any tirade in which someone simultaneously uses the words "insane", "idiocy", "crap", "fucking", and then... "seriously". No, really, he really means it!
(2) It calls its target names (idiot, incompetent) and does so publicly in front of the whole team, which speaks to a management style driven more by fear than by a shared understanding of goals.
Honestly I don't care how Linus Torvalds manages the Linux kernel, but as a case study for how to manage a development team, this is interesting, more so because you (among the very most level-headed of HN commenters) appear to approve of it!
I like your rewrite, at least compared to the original. It's still furiously angry, which may or may not be appropriate for whatever situation, but it isn't abusive.
"What do you think of Linus' management skills?" would be an interesting interview question.
I had honestly never considered the idea that it could be seen as condescending to express anger while taking pains not to humiliate the other person. At least I think that's what you're saying. Maybe there's another way to say it without the abuse?
In a boss-employee relationship, the boss is not your friend, so they are an authority figure, much like a parent is an authority figure to a child. So it could be in the nature of the relationship. I wouldn't talk to a friend or coworker like that, I do see how that would be condescending.
