Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!think!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!NRL3.ARPA!bal%va.DECnet From: bal%va.DECnet@NRL3.ARPA ("VA::BAL") Newsgroups: comp.os.vms Subject: Re: hackers Message-ID: <8707240034.AA05456@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Thu, 23-Jul-87 15:56:00 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8707240034.AA05456 Posted: Thu Jul 23 15:56:00 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 25-Jul-87 10:48:34 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: "VA::BAL"Distribution: world Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 53 Reply-To: bal%va.decnet@nrl.arpa Full-Name: Brian A. LaMacchia Address: Code 4771, Naval Research Laboratory Address: 4555 Overlook Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20375-5000 Phone: (202) 767-3066 >For what it's worth, I use the media definition of hacker because not >everybody out there is a techie, and some of them are even worth >speaking to :) Media corruption of technical terms is a fact of life, >and in order to be understood by everyone else, you have to speak their >language. As long as I know the difference, that's good enough for me. Then you yourself are perpetuation the corruption of the term. What good is it if you purposely use the corrupted definition of the term simply "in order to be understood by everyone else." By using the word in the wrong way you help to reinforce the negative connotation of the term. What you should be doing is educating those people who misuse the term as to the proper use of "hacker." >Another thing: two people can agree completely on the definition of the >term "hacker" (I suspect my definiton is rather close to Ralph's) and >disagree on whether that's good or bad. I don't admire hackers, if for Yes, that's called freedom of opinion. >no other reason than I think they work (actively or passively) to keep >technology inaccessible. THIS IS WRONG. 180 degrees off the mark. Plain and simple. Not only are "hackers" (in the good, original sense) against inaccessibility and security, they work to increase the free flow of information. One of the goals of the "hacker ethic" (as stated by Steve Levy in _Hackers_) is precisely this. There are plenty of examples of hackers' fellings toward accessibility. Read the book for examples, or look around you. Hackers are the people who give word-read access to their .emacs,login.com,.login,.cshrc, etc. files, so that you can copy and expand on the tricks they've found. They're the ones who openly post messages such as "If you'd like examples of this, look in ~foo/bar/baz.quux" They not only allow you to go poke around their files, they encourage it! The title "hacker" is not the scarlet letter of the computer age. The media may see/use it that way, but the media's been wrong before, and they'll be wrong again. Being called a true "hacker" is an honor, once which I would be proud to have. --Brian LaMacchia bal%va.decnet@nrl.arpa balamac@athena.mit.edu ------