this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
10 points (85.7% liked)

linuxmemes

20986 readers
1915 users here now

Hint: :q!


Sister communities:


Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
  • These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
  • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
  • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.

  • Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

    founded 1 year ago
    MODERATORS
     

    An oldie, but a goodie

    you are viewing a single comment's thread
    view the rest of the comments
    [–] Floey@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

    Demonstrably effective

    Where's the logic in looking at something successful and picking a singular thing to be responsible? What seems more likely is you are looking for an idea you are attached to that exists adjacent to something successful. It's like a Mormon looking for successful Mormon CEOs to then claim the company's success is due to the Mormon work ethic. It's like how in Whiplash the Charlie Parker story is venerated and seen as explanatory by the characters.

    [–] arc@lemm.ee -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

    The logic is simple. This is s his style and it demonstrably worked. I'm sure you could point to someone else's style that also works in another context but that's irrelevant.

    [–] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

    But did it work because of the style or in spite of it? No reason to believe it wouldn't be even more successful if he had been less abrasive like he is now.

    [–] arc@lemm.ee -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

    Because of it, quite obviously.

    [–] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

    How is that obvious? Especially because it's become even more successful after he's mellowed out?

    [–] dk841143@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

    "Especially because it's become even more successful after he's mellowed out?"

    You state that as if its also "obvious". How is this a fact? How is it obvious? Is it more successful because of his mellowing or irrespective of it? On its face, seems to me we cant nod our head in agreement to your sudden assertion any more than arc's assertion that Linus' initial style worked.

    You seem to want arc to provide some sort of metric or proof to back up his assertion. Well, where is yours? Where's your metric/data?

    [–] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

    My point is exactly that. It's not obvious, and as such you can't attribute the success of Linux to his behaviour. Like the OP said, there's no logic in looking at something successful and picking a singular thing to be responsible.

    [–] dk841143@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

    Already understood your point. Where in my post is it clear that l didn't? Its hinted and referenced that I understood as I use variations of your own phrases and challenge you using the same point on, Specifically, this quote:

    "Especially because it's become even more successful after he's mellowed out?"

    What exactly is the utility of the above quote of yours then? Cause its structured as something you assert as a fact that's used to bolster your initial point to arc.

    The bolster being something like:

    If its so obvious that Linus' original style was so "demonstrably effective" as to be the reason for the massive success of Linux then how can you (arc) explain the fact that it has especially become even more successful after he's mellowed out?

    but like, has it? Has it become even more successful after he's mellowed out? Your bolster kinda hinges on that fact to be true. Cause if we were to somehow find your assertion to be untrue and the project to be worse off by X degree after he mellowed out then that could more bolster arc's assertions.

    [–] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 1 points 10 months ago

    What exactly is the utility of the above quote of yours then?

    To show that the correlation is spurious at best.

    Has it become even more successful after he’s mellowed out?

    Yes, it has. Usage of Linux has been growing over the years.