"New Yorker" article

That article is horribly biased and unfair, in particular considering that it's likely to be consumed by a much larger audience than that which is usually in contact with LKML. Torvalds is portrayed as an anti-social person doing little else than writing abusive email.

This whole discussion is getting it wrong. Being on top of the maintainers chain, Torvalds could easily have dismissed stuff with words like "I don't like this patch, I'm not going to merge it - end of story." That would have fulfilled every criterion of "professionalism" that could be reasonably asked from a person in his position. Yet he often resorted to swearing instead, making himself vulnerable to those attacks which now prevail. Why? In part due to his temper, in part due to his lack of consideration... but other than abuse, can't these outcries be interpreted as - desperate and unhelpful - attempts to make the other side finally get his point?
And if so, isn't that actually better than simply waving the other's arguments aside?

Being sweared at by Linus is certainly a very unpleasant experience. But the way he is now being pilloried by a whole crowd of people is worse. Those who accuse him of being ignorant of other people's sentiments might perhaps consider _his_ feelings for a second. Jon mentioned Torvalds' harsh self-criticism. His willingness to discuss the weaknesses of his own personality in public is nothing but remarkable. I long to see half of that self-critical attitude from those who are attacking him.