On the basis of profanity alone, your action seems far worse than their's?

I can use profanity in my communication, but I would never put foul language in an error.. same as I wouldn't in documentation or a formal letter.

Just imagine a pop-up dialogue box on Windows or OSX showing an error with "Weird Shit!" in it. Could you?

Why does it upset you so?

So tell me, why would it be "funny"? Are you, or have you ever been responsible for content end users might see?

Regardless, the Lennart tirade added into the anecdote really just convinces me that the anecdote is there purely for axe-grinding.

> Are you, or have you ever been responsible for content end users might see?

Yes. I don't do such things because of curmudgeons like yourself. But as a user I wouldn't mind at all, and think it's funny.

Those that have never interacted with him don't care, I agree (I mean, why would they?). But those that have, i'd suggest is a minority that can tolerate him.. but ho-hum, neither of have statistics on this so we'll never know.

When I met and had discussions with him in 2007 he was mild and seemed to be constructive, i'd suggest his "bullish personality" became more prevalent with time.

Ineffective assholes are nonentities. Therefore all assholes worth noticing are effective, and all ineffective people worth noticing are nice.

I believe there's a name for this effect, but what it is escapes me at the moment.

> Berkson's paradox is a false observation of a negative correlation between two desirable traits, i.e., that members of a population which have some desirable trait tend to lack a second. Berkson's paradox occurs when this observation appears true when in reality the two properties are unrelated—or even positively correlated—because members of the population where both are absent are not equally observed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson%27s_paradox

People will claim it's unprofessional, and it is. The problem is that when other's are also unprofessional you can't convince them by being professional.

If you look at who moves up the social ladder fastest and retains their power the longest, they are typically hard-headed people. The have an almost unreasonable amount of confidence in themselves, and in many ways they are delusional.

However, I would argue such a personality is better than being timid. Ultimately, past the computers and the programs we are humans, and human effects come into play. Success is not just measured by correctness; it's measured by perception.

Many years ago, someone replied to me saying, “you’re right, but your comment is so abrasive,” and that really stuck with me.

Humility and grace can go a long way, even in internet conversations.

It's one thing to think I'm wrong, it's another all together to warp my argument to make me appear crazy. Or pro-abuse. Or whatever. That, to me, isn't in good faith and I quickly lose the motivation to be kind. I work under the assumption the people I talk to aren't stupid, they're aware of what they're doing. I won't extend pity or give people the innocence of a child. In my eyes, that is even more offensive.

He's doing that only because it's his job: his employer has an agenda (i.e. steering Linux fast enough and disruptively enough at a low level, so that serious competitors cannot arise), and he's implementing that agenda without a care in the world.

Would I personally take such a ruthless mercenary over more community-minded folks? No.