While I don't disagree with your point, your argument is a poor one. "must have a minimum of ego" is a requirement for any productive endeavor. Software development is not a special case.
"is not built on top of personality traits" is parsing the complaint too literally. It's unquestionable that the personality traits of those in charge turn many people off from wanting to contribute.
Finally, the fact of success is very weak evidence that any particular personality trait involved was necessary to that success. It's a fallacy of the successful to believe that their path was the only one that could be successful, but at least they have reasons for believing that to be true. It's silly for observers to fall into the same trap of false logic.
For a comment that talks about taking things too literally, I think you've pinned too many of those separate points together. There was no suggestion that, for example, Linux is successful because of the way Linus talks to developers. It could be despite it.
But I will say that a lot of the people complaining about it have absolutely zero experience developing at even a fraction the scale Linux works at. Thousands of large contributions from hundreds of developers every release. Keeping a handle on that demands a strict submission framework.
But sure, everybody and their mother has a go at Linus because after two decades hammering out these rules, he loses his shit when developers and companies submit crap that ignores the basic minimum requirements for submission. I don't think you can say that his curt approach has done more harm than good. I'm sure it does both, to different audiences.
