Let's try to share here an alternative perspective.
I think that Torvalds's "unprofessional" behaviour is (was?) a great counterpower to corporate control over Linux.
This was probably more a side effect of Linus character than an intended social hack, but it was very effective anyway: despite most of Linux development was driven by a handful of multinational corporations, hackers were still able to hack Linux "just for fun".
With Linus behaving that way, nobody could have been banned with a stupid excuse from LKML for asking annoying questions.
This is a step toward cultural uniformity that ease corporate management and marketing for the Technical Advisory Board.
Corporate management that always put corporate interests before users' ones.Uniformity that does not fit hackers' at all.
So while I can empathise with the man who realizes he hurted feelings and and tries to apology, I think all this is a very bad day for Linux users and hackers.
Hackers shouldn't be "professional", just creatively curious.
Yes, Linus advocates independence from corporate interests. However, his behavior also contributed to key developers leaving and others not wanting to join. Surely there's a better middle ground?
Honestly, I do not know. I really can't think of any other way.
But now, I'm pretty sure those corporate interests are way stronger than before.
And if you look at it from a post-snowden geopolitical perspective, Linux suddenly became an hazard for everybody. Just like the Web.
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.