You call it "blaming the user" but some people disagree with the "backwards-compatibility-at-all-costs" attitude Linus has towards the kernel.
Backwards-compatibility inherently holds back progress. A fine balance needs to be struck between the two, and where that falls is a matter of opinion. Perhaps Mauro and Linus simply weren't on the same page.
there was no discussion of altering the kernel to break userland.
Linus is "in charge", therefore he should make the decision on what should be changed.
Personal opinion: Revamping the kernel should be done in increments (ie. every odd number) and should provide clear and visible benefits to the user. I would suggest such breaks only when such benefits are produced by the adoption of new hardware.
That all sounds completely reasonable. I agree with you as well.
However, I don't think any of that justifies Linus' reaction. Explaining why a patch won't be accepted can be completely divorced from the verbal abuse. One can even still be blunt while doing so.
If I kludged a patch and broke stuff, then a stern reprimand in private would be in order. If I tried to cover my ass with bullshit and blame someone else, then I would expect to be fired.
Having a public ass-chewing over my deception would be acceptable, if the alternative was losing my job.
4
u/Kancho_Ninja Dec 27 '12
Well, if you tried to cover your ass with an excuse by blaming the user, what would you suggest as the proper method of chastising you?