Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

How to Read the Swearword Graphs

• Several commenters note the plots use absolute counts, not normalized by code size or “new code,” limiting conclusions about cultural shift.
• A sharp drop in “fuck” around 4.18–5.6 is traced mostly to a single commit removing many repeated “IOC3 is fucking fucked” lines, not a broad behavioral change.
• Some spikes are artifacts: “crap” jumps largely because it appears inside one contributor’s email address; “ass*” is dominated by “class/assign/assert/associate…”.
• Company names in the tool (“apple”, “meta”, “IBM”, etc.) measure mentions in code/comments, not contribution volume. LWN kernel stats are cited as a better source for that.
• Many “offensive” tokens are actually technical: “retard”/“retarded” as “delay/retard timing,” “garbage” in “garbage value/collection,” “meta” as a prefix, etc.

Corporatization vs “Soul” of the Kernel

• One thread claims reduced profanity indicates corporatization and a “soulless bland hellscape,” especially as more kernel work is employer-funded.
• Others counter that overall swear density was never high, and that emotional investment shows up better in testing and quality than in expletives.
• Some suggest LLM‑generated code will be “sanitized,” making old human comments (including swears) interesting as future anthropological artifacts.

Professionalism, Respect, and Code Comments

• Strong camp: swearing in shared code is unprofessional noise. Comments should explain “why,” not emote (“stupid hack” vs “work around Lotus 1‑2‑3 leap-year bug”).
• Practical arguments: reputational risk if code is read in court, by customers, auditors, or external consultants; real anecdotes of debug messages with expletives popping up in customer demos or logs.
• Some see “no curse words” as no different from tabs/braces rules; others argue it’s corporate conformity that suppresses individuality.
• Several note internal cultural variation: in some countries and smaller teams, workplace swearing (in speech) is normal, but people still avoid it in commits and formal artifacts.

Arguments in Favor of Profanity

• Supporters frame swears as useful intensifiers and emotional signals: “precision F-strike” to mark truly bizarre code paths or painful hacks.
• Some equate profanity with honesty and passion, contrasting it with euphemistic corporate language.
• There’s pushback against the idea that swearing implies low intelligence; references are made to studies and to profanity‑heavy but highly skilled professions.

Culture, Harm, and Offense

• Discussion around “retard/retarded,” “idiot,” “gay,” etc. highlights the euphemism treadmill and their history as clinical terms turned slurs.
• People who were bullied with these words describe them as genuinely painful; others argue avoiding a few terms to spare that pain is easy and worthwhile.
• Meta‑discussion emerges about “PC culture,” fear vs respect, and how much engineers should adapt language to the most sensitive audience versus prioritize directness and “fun.”