Nowhere did willhslade say that it does. He said that comparing Knuth's style to Torvalds's isn't very enlightening because they are fundamentally engaged in different activities.
Comparing Knuth to Torvalds and saying "look, you don't have to be an asshole to be a great leader" is like comparing Usain Bolt to Dean Karnazes and saying "look, you don't have to be really muscular to be a great sprinter." The comparison is pointless because Karnazes isn't a sprinter just like Knuth isn't leading major software efforts.
Find a successful leader of a large-scale piece of software who doesn't have a reputation for being an asshole and use them for the comparison.
To be clear, I'm also not claiming that a leader has to be an asshole. I agree with willhslade that Knuth is not a meaningful counterpoint to Torvalds, though.
>The comparison is pointless because Karnazes isn't a sprinter just like Knuth isn't leading major software efforts.
That makes sense, except that OP said "You don't have to be a jerk to get ahead in life", he didn't mentioned being a leader. The followed commenters brought the leadership point into attention and then subtly implied that there is more correlation between being a jerk and a leader.
I was replying to cesarbs, who literally said "Being a leader does not justify being an asshole."
Edit: And yes, the conversation pivoted to being a leader because that is a critical difference between Knuth and Torvalds which seems very relevant to this sort of comparison.
From what I have read Bezos always had a minimal role in the technical management of Amazon other than yelling at people to work harder and micro-managing how amazon.com looked. I have not read anything about Ellison but cannot imagine he has been involved in managing Oracle the database vs Oracle the corporation since the late 1980s.
> It's a survival mechanism. Not everyone has the time or ability to be nice to everyone they have to deal with in a position like Torvalds'.
Flaming someone on a mailing list takes as much time as being nice to them. If it was about time then Linus could just ignore or dismiss things without going out of his way to type up insults.
> Flaming someone on a mailing list takes as much time as being nice to them.
Not if you take into account the time saved by (strongly) discouraging people from wasting your time in the future.
> If it was about time then Linus could just ignore or dismiss things
No, you absolutely cannot do that. If you ignore people on software projects, they do not go away. They just get more convinced that they're right, which means getting more shrill and insistent.
You don't tolerate them but want them to tolerate others.
TBH, I'd be totally fine if Linus ranted over my code because that's the way he is and I don't believe in community that tries to isolate an individual because he/she doesn't have a popular mindset.
The whole "you're tolerant so you have to tolerate intolerance!!1!" thing is not some clever loophole, it's just a weak attempt to justify why people shouldn't be called out for being unpleasant/bigoted. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tolerance#Paradox_of_tolerance
The "intolerance" Popper talked of preventing was this:
"In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols."
So his justification for this was founded on a prevention of violence. We already have this in the USA, for example, in that we forbid incitement to violence, fighting words and the like. So unless you can show some strong nexus between these statements and actual, physical violence of some kind, you can't use Karl Popper as a justification.
On the contrary, it's calling out the blatant hypocrisy and utter lack of self-awareness of those who claim to be tolerant and embrace diversity ...except for those people and views they personally happen to disapprove of. Tolerance is not a meaningful concept when it only applies to those you happen to like already.
It's not a wild west when you call people out because they are unpleasant. In modern world (as I see it) you create a competition and public follows best one.
That goes both ways, though, right? There are people who are isolated in the community because of the actions of hyper-critical people. The presence of people like Torvalds is isolating to others.
I mean, sure, you may think that Torvalds provides more value than the people he isolates, but either way people are getting isolated.
Thanks, I got your point, and I don't value Torvalds over other people, but I value his kernel engineering skills over other people's kernel engineering skills.
You know, if it has to be our decision whom to isolate, why not create a competitive community and vote for it with commits, instead of destroying the original community by removing Linus out of the office?
People confuse directness with being an asshole. If your results suck, saying they suck isn't being an asshole. If you feel that something is horrible, sugar-coating it to make sure you don't hurt someone's feelings is unauthentic.
Here's the difference...
When someone says "your product sucks, throw it away" .. with the INTENT of causing that person to feel bad, thats being an ashhole.
If you tell them that their product sucks because you genuinely feel that way, and you're simply communicating authentically, then you're not being an asshole, you're being authentic.
Here's how you can tell the difference. The former in that example get stuck at best in middle management in low-quality companies... the latter finds themselves at the top.
Guess what: being an asshole is in the eye of the beholder.
If someone says I'm an asshole, I don't get to tell them they're wrong. It's how they feel about me, regardless of whatever I or anyone else feels.
The absolute best I could do is say that they're alone in feeling that way.
Lots of folks thought Steve Jobs was an asshole. You can say "well he was just direct" but that doesn't take away how they felt about him, or what their opinions are.
Or that famous email telling everyone not to poach "his" employees. As if he has ownership over then like a feudal lord over serfs. Oh and that email ends with not very veiled patent lawsuit threat for anyone who disagrees? And you guys complain about your wages and working hours?
Maybe don't deify the guy who worked against you and your interests his whole career.
