If I had mod points you would get some positivity from me.
Both Garrett & Sharp make reckless, decontextualised and highly aggressive allegations (see Garret vs Tso and Sharp vs Torvalds/Molnar on mailing list). Not micro-aggressions (whatever those are) but really nasty, disingenuous, slanderous attacks full of misrepresentation and bile, sometimes introducing very ripe language where it wasn't already present. But if you want to disagree with these two saints they reserve the right to only acknowledge disagreement that they don't really disagree with. Everything else on their blogs gets replaced with "fart fart fart fart" and the author is automatically disparaged/ridiculed. These two behave like spoiled children or little lords but claim the moral high ground!
I appreciate that both these characters made and perhaps continue to make contributions which benefit others. However, that doesn't make them unique, nor irreplaceable, nor does it give them the right to insist that other people comply with their personal tastes.
I've read several threads on lkml where Torvalds and Sharp or Torvalds and Garrett (and others). Sharp comes across as someone energetically and actively seeking to find offence, while Garrett gives the impression of someone actively seeking to deliberately misunderstand plain English in order to be able to shout down others while pointing and blaming (it's a time tested method of implying one is of better character than the "heretics" or the "wicked").
In contrast, in those same threads, Torvalds comes across as someone expressing his views with a great deal of humour and not a little patience. When he blows his top it's not on social issues, it's because people are either being lazy/careless, or trying to use Linux as a platform for social evangelism.
I really doubt Linux or Linus will miss Sharp or Garrett, either in terms of code or in terms of sub-machiavellian mailing list attention seeking.
For the record I think Sharp is a dick and Garrett is a pussy.