That's your opinion, which is fine, but remember that other people may have their own opinions.

> and should stop it"

I think he's handled many situations very well. Mr. Torvalds only uses this type of language after a problem has persisted for a long time, usually after repeated attempts (either directly or through his "lieutenants") to fix the problem.

If the polite nudges don't work, stronger language can be necessary. There is a difference between careful use of strong language to make a specific point, and a personal attack or continuing grudge.

Mr. Torvalds has always had strict standards for code formatting because mix-styles eventually becomes a mess that is harder to maintain. Attacking the coding style is good management. It's cherry-picking to pull the one swear word he used.

> rude behavior

Sometimes strong language caries meaning. Cultural differences can make this a bit of a gray area, but in this case, a minor use of strong language was very effective at conveying just how bad those comment styles are for the long-term maintenance of the kernel.

It's slightly too long to include here directly, but please read this short work (poem? blank verse?), "How a plan becomes policy".

http://ogun.stanford.edu/~bnayfeh/plan.html

I'm not trying to justify arbitrary use of swearing or other rudeness. I'm suggesting that strong language is data which is foolish to ignore if it's used carefully.

> [items 1-5]

Most of these seem to be projection, not actual arguments that are used in the defense of the language.

Focus on the message, more or less polite doesn't really have to matter. When I try to do that myself, in reading what you say I realize you really say nothing to me (NOP!), it's all about how to say things. The facts you present (visionary developer, built something millions use, gets along with his cohort...) you yourself attempt to undermine.

But, do read this, it's a funny take on this type of debate (with permission of the author, Jeff Bigler, license to copy below):

| All people have a "tact filter", which applies tact in one direction to everything that passes through it. Most "normal people" have the tact filter positioned to apply tact in the outgoing direction. Thus whatever normal people say gets the appropriate amount of tact applied to it before they say it. This is because when they were growing up, their parents continually drilled into their heads statements like, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all!"

| "Nerds," on the other hand, have their tact filter positioned to apply tact in the incoming direction. Thus, whatever anyone says to them gets the appropriate amount of tact added when they hear it. This is because when nerds were growing up, they continually got picked on, and their parents continually drilled into their heads statements like, "They're just saying those mean things because they're jealous. They don't really mean it."

| When normal people talk to each other, both people usually apply the appropriate amount of tact to everything they say, and no one's feelings get hurt. When nerds talk to each other, both people usually apply the appropriate amount of tact to everything they hear, and no one's feelings get hurt. However, when normal people talk to nerds, the nerds often get frustrated because the normal people seem to be dodging the real issues and not saying what they really mean. Worse yet, when nerds talk to normal people, the normal people's feelings often get hurt because the nerds don't apply tact, assuming the normal person will take their blunt statements and apply whatever tact is necessary.

| So, nerds need to understand that normal people have to apply tact to everything they say; they become really uncomfortable if they can't do this. Normal people need to understand that despite the fact that nerds are usually tactless, things they say are almost never meant personally and shouldn't be taken that way. Both types of people need to be extra patient when dealing with someone whose tact filter is backwards relative to their own.

[Copyright © 1996, 2006 by Jeff Bigler. Permission is granted to redistribute this text in its entirety, provided that this copyright notice and either the URL for the page (http://www.mit.edu/~jcb/tact.html) or a link to it is included. All other rights reserved. ]

Isn't Torvalds doing just the contrary in this case? He advocates for easy to read and understand comments

Torvalds doesn't display any bully-like behaviour here. One has to be careful when labelling.