jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. De Armond) (11/09/89)
In article <14468@well.UUCP> kmh@well.UUCP (Katherine Hafner) writes: > > >My name is Katie Hafner and I am writing a book with >John Markoff. The book focuses on "hackers" as the >press has reinvented the word: people who break >into computer systems. The book is intended as a >sequel of sorts to Steven Levy's "Hackers." I am inviting the net to treat this lady with a most deadening silence. She obviously lacks sufficient taste to know that this is exactly the WRONG forum to abuse the meaning of the complimentary term "hacker". It is also the wrong forum to seek the opportunity to glorify illegal and antisocial actions. As an old time hacker, I wear the badge with pride. I started hacking when the term meant hooking 6L6s together to make bistable multivibrators (remember that term?) I greatly resent the prostitution of the term, especially when the goal is a quick buck. And she uses the network built and mantained by the creme-de-la-creme of the hackers to solicit for her techno-smut! Sheez. Lady, you have pissed me off! Source your book elsewhere. (Sorry folks, but she hit a nerve.) John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | Manual? ... What manual ?!? Radiation Systems, Inc. Atlanta, GA | This is Unix, My son, You emory!rsiatl!jgd **I am the NRA** | just GOTTA Know!!!
saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) (11/10/89)
A nerve is being tweaked for a lot of us. Sure, there's probably a good
reason for a book on computer-obsessed vandals. But that book couldn't
reasonably be a sequal to "Hackers". How about a book on the computer-
obsessed in general? Include as many words & as many good stories about the
good guys, and it starts to sound better. The guy who planted the Internet
worm is more boring the more you hear about him. The team effort to wipe it
out reads like John Le Carre. I don't know the full stories, but at least
3 operating systems (UNIX, HP TODS and Atari GEMDOS) derive from 1 guy fed
up with an over-organized project going home and doing it RIGHT (in his
opinion) by himself. How about stories about PARC alumni? I'm not saying
not to tell about the compu-vandals, just to find the stories of the REAL
successors to those "Hackers".
Steve J.rowland@hpavla.HP.COM (Fred Rowland) (11/10/89)
Sure, the press reinvented the word hacker, but they gave it a brand new meaning with criminal connotations. It would be best if the distorted meaning were to die. We certainly don't need another book to perpetuate an insult to people interested in computers and how they work. Forget it. Fred Rowland Hewlett-Packard/Avondale division
mrm@sceard.Sceard.COM (M.R.Murphy) (11/10/89)
In article <509@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. De Armond) writes: +In article <14468@well.UUCP> kmh@well.UUCP (Katherine Hafner) writes: +> +> +>My name is Katie Hafner and I am writing a book with +>John Markoff. The book focuses on "hackers" as the +>press has reinvented the word: people who break +>into computer systems. The book is intended as a +>sequel of sorts to Steven Levy's "Hackers." + +I am inviting the net to treat this lady with a most deadening silence. +She obviously lacks sufficient taste to know that this is exactly the +WRONG forum to abuse the meaning of the complimentary term "hacker". +It is also the wrong forum to seek the opportunity to glorify +illegal and antisocial actions. + +As an old time hacker, I wear the badge with pride. I started hacking +when the term meant hooking 6L6s together to make bistable multivibrators +(remember that term?) I greatly resent the prostitution of the term, +especially when the goal is a quick buck. And she uses the network built +and mantained by the creme-de-la-creme of the hackers to solicit for +her techno-smut! Sheez. + +Lady, you have pissed me off! Source your book elsewhere. + +(Sorry folks, but she hit a nerve.) + +John + +-- +John De Armond, WD4OQC | Manual? ... What manual ?!? +Radiation Systems, Inc. Atlanta, GA | This is Unix, My son, You +emory!rsiatl!jgd **I am the NRA** | just GOTTA Know!!! I usually agree with John's postings, but in this case I disagree. When I started fooling around with computers, the term hacker was used to denote someone who 1) fixed programs that weren't broken, 2) kept trying changes without understanding problems or the program being changed, or 3) built furniture with an axe (or the programming equivalent). The word has changed meaning several times since then. I think that the word will likely change meanings a few more times before it's through. The then that I refer to is when you could program computers that weren't digital. That's what you get for being crusty, there aren't enough wires, knobs, and lights anymore, and surely not enough interesting noises :-(. Disagreeing with Katie, too, the press didn't change the definition of the word. Powerful the fourth estate is, but they just went with the flow. In the case of changing word meanings, we probably all should go with the same flow; it isn't worth getting pissed off over. Mike -- Mike Murphy Sceard Systems, Inc. 544 South Pacific St. San Marcos, CA 92069 mrm@Sceard.COM {hp-sdd,nosc,ucsd,uunet}!sceard!mrm +1 619 471 0655
dbell@cup.portal.com (David J Bell) (11/11/89)
>> >>My name is Katie Hafner and I am writing a book with >>John Markoff. The book focuses on "hackers" as the ^^^^^^ >>press has reinvented the word: people who break ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>into computer systems. The book is intended as a >>sequel of sorts to Steven Levy's "Hackers." > >I am inviting the net to treat this lady with a most deadening silence. >She obviously lacks sufficient taste to know that this is exactly the >WRONG forum to abuse the meaning of the complimentary term "hacker". >It is also the wrong forum to seek the opportunity to glorify >illegal and antisocial actions. > >As an old time hacker, I wear the badge with pride. I started hacking >when the term meant hooking 6L6s together to make bistable multivibrators >(remember that term?) I greatly resent the prostitution of the term, >especially when the goal is a quick buck. And she uses the network built >and mantained by the creme-de-la-creme of the hackers to solicit for >her techno-smut! Sheez. > >Lady, you have pissed me off! Source your book elsewhere. > >(Sorry folks, but she hit a nerve.) > >John De Armond, WD4OQC I disagree, John.... She *specifically* noted that the book will deal with the term "hackers" AS DEFINED BY THE PRESS. NOT as defined by polite society. I will keep my mind open on the subject until she proves her intentions by properly discussing it. What better forum than this to gather information? The New York Times, perhaps? That's the whole problem... And I have also been around long enough to feel confortable as a "hacker" in your terms. Although I didn't tie 6L6's together to make bistables. They made much better CW transmitters! Maybe I started later - we used 12AX7's for flip-flops... Dave dbell@cup.portal.com
reid@decwrl.dec.com (Brian Reid) (11/12/89)
In article <509@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. De Armond) writes: >In article <14468@well.UUCP> kmh@well.UUCP (Katherine Hafner) writes: >> >>(a question) > > an angry response I'm an old-time hacker. I've been hacking in assembly language and other fine systems since 1966, and I've built audio amplifiers out of 6L6's, otcal socket and all (though I prefer the more modern 9-pin 6AQ5--smaller and cleaner). I hope that qualifies me as authentic. Some of you USENETters may know me as the person who does the readership and flow measurement for the network; if you've been to a USENIX you may have seen my maps being handed out at the UUNET booth. Also I'm the lead system administrator for decwrl, which is a major net node. I tell you all of this not to gloat or strut, but to ask you to accept my credentials as a lifelong member of "us" and not "them". I happen to know Katie Hafner (she used to live around here before she moved to new York) and I would like to speak up on her behalf to say that she is not at all an evil journalist, although she certainly can occasionally talk like one (as she did in her posting). She's not even a journalist, she's a writer (see--their profession has its carefully-chosen vocabulary, too). Katie, if you're reading this, I want to chastise you for your incorrect use of our hacker's language. I know you can do better. Maybe you should have asked a native speaker to review your message before you posted it. And never, never again use the word "hacker" as a perjorative, regardless of what you think the word means to the tabloid-reading public. "Hacker" is a badge of honor, a rank to be attained, in our world, and anyone who uses phrases like "..still hacking or have outgrown it" is as instantly suspect as somebody who walks into my laboratory wearing a 3-piece suit asking if my computer is IBM compatible. Also, I believe from what I know of Katie's book that its publication will be a service to the hacker community and not an attack on it. Now, here's the question that I think Katie was trying to ask but doesn't speak our language well enough to ask: My name is Katie Hafner. I'm working on a book about people who abuse computer technology. For example, Kevin Mitnick, who is in jail right now for being caught in posession of stolen credit card numbers (which, incidentally, he was using to break into DEC's E-NET and cause trouble). I'm trying to get a sense of whether or not the hacker community considers Mitnick and people like him to be outlaws. If you don't think Mitnick is an outlaw (many don't), then howabout Hans Huebner (Pengo), who penetrated various systems and sold the results to the KGB. A person who breaks into a computer network and steals money is clearly on the wrong side of the law; a person who breaks into the same network and just joyrides may well not be. I'd like to hear from you about where you think the boundary is. My own answer to my version of Katie's question is that we hackers, like all professionals, have an obligation to respect the rights of others and an obligation to help further our profession. A hacker who goes on the wrong side of the law is no different from a veterinarian or a bible salesman who uses his professional skills for unethical gain. The fact that the perpetrator happened to be a hacker rather than a woodcarver or a journalist is not relevant. Brian Reid
colbath@cs.rochester.edu (Sean Colbath) (11/12/89)
In article <227@jove.dec.com> reid@decwrl.dec.com (Brian Reid) writes: > <deleted description of flames about writing about hackers, between > John De Armond and Katherine Hafner> > >I happen to know Katie Hafner (she used to live around here before she moved >to new York) and I would like to speak up on her behalf to say that she is >not at all an evil journalist, although she certainly can occasionally talk >like one (as she did in her posting). She's not even a journalist, she's a >writer (see--their profession has its carefully-chosen vocabulary, too). I think that Brian Reid has hit upon part of the problem - that of language and the phrasing of Kate's posting. When I read Kate's article, I was rather angry too - I have been "hacking" since 8th grade (I am 22 now, and hoping to go on to Grad school in CS) and (for the most part ;-) my activities have been entirely honorable. I, too, resent the fact that the press has co-opted the word "hacker" to mean something bad, much in the same vein that "christian" is used as a pejorative these days. > Katie, if you're reading this, I want to chastise you for your incorrect use > of our hacker's language. I know you can do better. Maybe you should have > asked a native speaker to review your message before you posted it. And > never, never again use the word "hacker" as a pejorative, regardless of what > you think the word means to the tabloid-reading public. "Hacker" is a badge > of honor, a rank to be attained, in our world, and anyone who uses phrases > like "..still hacking or have outgrown it" is as instantly suspect as > somebody who walks into my laboratory wearing a 3-piece suit asking if my > computer is IBM compatible. True. If there's anything I dislike worse than the use of hacker to mean someone who perpetrates computer crime, it's the association of the word with a juvenile, pimply-faced, antisocial young man, probably overweight, sitting in his room having no other social life than what he can attain via bulletin boards and CompuServe. C'mon, people. Marvin Minsky was a hacker. McCarthy & Sussman were hackers. Bill Joy was a hacker. These people don't exactly fit that mold. There are female hackers - I know women that I would gladly describe with that word. In the professional world, one of the inventors of IBM's VM operating system was Love Seawright. I'm sure there are many more. > Also, I believe from what I know of Katie's book that its publication will be > a service to the hacker community and not an attack on it. I hope so. I would dearly love to see a book that took the curse off of that word, although it is probably too late. A previous poster likened the attempt to track down the InterNet worm to a John LeCarre novel. If it weren't for hackers, the worm might have caused a lot more damage. Hackers at MIT, Berkeley, and elsewhere reverse-engineered the object code and figured out how it attacked. An astronomer/hacker helped catch the guy who was breaking into LLBL from West Germany. *These* people are the real hackers - they should be the ones written about. Perhaps a good approach to the novel would be in some sort of Arthurian romance style, with the criminals being the "hackers" who had broken the code of honor, and were hunted down by their good counterparts. > Now, here's the question that I think Katie was trying to ask but doesn't > speak our language well enough to ask: > > My name is Katie Hafner. I'm working on a book about people > who abuse computer technology. For example, Kevin Mitnick, > who is in jail right now for being caught in possession of > stolen credit card numbers (which, incidentally, he was > using to break into DEC's E-NET and cause trouble). I'm trying > to get a sense of whether or not the hacker community > considers Mitnick and people like him to be outlaws. If you > don't think Mitnick is an outlaw (many don't), then > howabout Hans Huebner (Pengo), who penetrated various > systems and sold the results to the KGB. A person who > breaks into a computer network and steals money is clearly > on the wrong side of the law; a person who breaks into the > same network and just joyrides may well not be. I'd like to > hear from you about where you think the boundary is. Hmm. Better. Another danger from a book like this is that anything that gets written about these people, unless the author is *extremely* careful, runs the risk of glorifying their actions. This glorification of crime only helps to breed more crime, and worse, lessens public opinion of the seriousness of the crime. Many people I talk to feel that the incident with Morris and the Internet worm did no harm. This is an attitude I'd expect to see from someone outside the computer community (such as my students in my Intro CS recitation), I find it springing up among computer professionals. "No harm was done." Ugh. How untrue. Although a part of myself says that if you leave the keys in your car you are in part responsible for its theft, the criminal is still responsible for his or her actions. I hope that this book manages to portray these people in the correct light. > My own answer to my version of Katie's question is that we hackers, like > all professionals, have an obligation to respect the rights of others and > an obligation to help further our profession. A hacker who goes on the > wrong side of the law is no different from a veterinarian or a bible > salesman who uses his professional skills for unethical gain. The fact > that the perpetrator happened to be a hacker rather than a woodcarver > or a journalist is not relevant. Ha - some sort of argument for a "programmer's bar" or a "hippocratic oath of programming." I like the last term - especially with the prevalence of computer viruses today. Instead of a deafening silence, the net should provide Kate with responses that show what kind of a book we would like to see written: one that shows that the word hacker is not loaded only with negative connotations, but has more positive ones than negative. One that shows that there is an ethic among hackers, and that people who break this ethic are looked down upon (and that this ethic is not just "honor among thieves!"). One that shows that to be a hacker is to be an artist, a creator, and someone with a love for a particular discipline, and to be a "cracker" is to be someone who has never attained those ideals - someone who can only use the tools for bad purposes, for the quick and easy gratification of their desires, and does not perceive the true nature of their work. > Brian Reid Sean Colbath colbath@cs.rochester.edu rochester!colbath "And now for something completely different..."
exspes@gdr.bath.ac.uk (P E Smee) (11/13/89)
In article <111@cupcake.sal.wisc.edu> jwp@cupcake.sal.wisc.edu.UUCP (Jeffrey W Percival) writes: >In article <14468@well.UUCP> kmh@well.UUCP (Katherine Hafner) writes: >>to examine a new generation of young men obsessed >>with computers. I'm seeking comments from people > >Why do you assume all hackers are men? I'm not worried about the >implied sexism in the assumption; either there are female hackers or >there are not. All the research I've seen indicates that certainly the vast majority of hackers (in either sense of the word) are men. There seem to be two hypothetical factors. The first is the traditional obvious one, which also explains why (for example) most engineers are men. That being, that boys are encouraged to take an interest in technical things and the workings thereof, while girls are at best not encouraged, and at worst actively discouraged from doing so. The second is a bit more subtle, and has to do with the cultural expectations that men will 'be in control' of the world. Traditionally this has meant vying to obtain power by gaining control over people. This role is difficult for men who for one reason or another (generally some form of shyness) find it difficult to relate to people. Gaining power by hacking (again in either sense) provides a way of doing so without the need for relating to other people, and so allows such men to fulfill the traditional cultural masculine role. Do note that both of these are cultural effects. I think that (as with any other inequity) it would be silly to try to pretend that it doesn't exist. It seems to be fairly clearly there. This does not mean it's right. Computing (including perforce 'hacking') has the same need as most of the technological professions to figure out why women are not actively encouraged, and to do something about it. Society loses half of its potential technical geniuses if it does not address this issue. -- Paul Smee | JANET: Smee@uk.ac.bristol Computer Centre | BITNET: Smee%uk.ac.bristol@ukacrl.bitnet University of Bristol | Internet: Smee%uk.ac.bristol@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk (Phone: +44 272 303132) | UUCP: ...!uunet!ukc!gdr.bath.ac.uk!exspes
exspes@gdr.bath.ac.uk (P E Smee) (11/13/89)
In article <509@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. De Armond) writes: >In article <14468@well.UUCP> kmh@well.UUCP (Katherine Hafner) writes: >> >> >>My name is Katie Hafner and I am writing a book with >>John Markoff. The book focuses on "hackers" as the >>press has reinvented the word: people who break >>into computer systems. The book is intended as a >>sequel of sorts to Steven Levy's "Hackers." > >I am inviting the net to treat this lady with a most deadening silence. >She obviously lacks sufficient taste to know that this is exactly the >WRONG forum to abuse the meaning of the complimentary term "hacker". I think you're being a bit harsh. She does specifically say 'as the press has reinvented the word'. And, realistically speaking, and whether you like it or not, (and I certainly don't) that is what 'hacker' does mean today. The press didn't invent the word, but rather grabbed it from the computer people, so I suspect that that is really our fault; that *we* did not differentiate between 'good' hacking and 'bad' hacking until we suddenly had our name for ourselves taken and turned over. >It is also the wrong forum to seek the opportunity to glorify >illegal and antisocial actions. Don't recall that Levy's book did that. Have I got him confused with someone else? Also, didn't spot that Katie said whe was going to do that. It is certainly possible (and often desireable) to write about something without glorifying it. (And anyway, in the system admin'ing parts of my current life it can be handy to know what sorts of things they are up to, so that I know what to watch out for.) >As an old time hacker, I wear the badge with pride. I started hacking >when the term meant hooking 6L6s together to make bistable multivibrators >(remember that term?) Yep. :-) Though by the time I did my first hardware hack it was more likely that the bistables would be made up from either DEC flip-chips or RTL IC's. How about acoustic delay-line memory? -- Paul Smee | JANET: Smee@uk.ac.bristol Computer Centre | BITNET: Smee%uk.ac.bristol@ukacrl.bitnet University of Bristol | Internet: Smee%uk.ac.bristol@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk (Phone: +44 272 303132) | UUCP: ...!uunet!ukc!gdr.bath.ac.uk!exspes
es@sinix.UUCP (Dr. Sanio) (11/14/89)
In article <227@jove.dec.com> reid@decwrl.dec.com (Brian Reid) writes: >>In article <14468@well.UUCP> kmh@well.UUCP (Katherine Hafner) writes: >>>(a question) > >Now, here's the question that I think Katie was trying to ask but doesn't >speak our language well enough to ask: > > My name is Katie Hafner. I'm working on a book about people > who abuse computer technology. For example, Kevin Mitnick, > who is in jail right now for being caught in posession of > .. > considers Mitnick and people like him to be outlaws. If you > don't think Mitnick is an outlaw (many don't), then > howabout Hans Huebner (Pengo), who penetrated various > systems and sold the results to the KGB. A person who > breaks into a computer network and steals money is clearly > on the wrong side of the law; a person who breaks into the > same network and just joyrides may well not be. I'd like to > hear from you about where you think the boundary is. > > .. Well, Brian, I agree to most you wrote as far as I can verify it. But I already expressed in an email I sent to Katie that I'm strongly pissed off about the rumours about Hans Huebner. Though I don't know that guy personally, I know him from several contributions on regional, continental and international networks. I know him as a serious, knowledgeable person. About that KGB affair, I know that he is not in prison, is not sentenced, even not (yet?) formally accused. As most people all over the world, I regard spying as a serious criminal offense. But in our legal system in Germany (the same with you, I believe), a person has as long to be considered as innocent as (s)he has not been sentenced. The whole "KGB Hacker" affair has been inflated excessively by the press, IMHO. The small company in Berlin (with a public access computer, where I'm a user, too), to which H.Huebner had some connections, has been accused to be involved in spying, which has clearly proved false in the meantime. I regarded the way the press spread names of suspected persons as highly discriminating and intolerable. In those publications, source programs you can find in any university computer were declared to subjects of national security uncovering the complete ignorance of the journalists. I'm sad seeing similar shit being repeated on a network mainly visited by computer experts. That cannot be excused by the fact that some people (especially in the U.S.) turn into lunatics with foam on their mouth as soon as they hear keywords like "KGB" etc . >Brian Reid regards, es
ggw@wolves.uucp (Gregory G. Woodbury) (11/16/89)
In article <1989Nov11.225859.16964@cs.rochester.edu> (Sean Colbath) writes: >In article <227@jove.dec.com> reid@decwrl.dec.com (Brian Reid) writes: > >I think that Brian Reid has hit upon part of the problem - that of language >and the phrasing of Kate's posting. When I read Kate's article, I was rather >angry too - I have been "hacking" since 8th grade (I am 22 now, and hoping >to go on to Grad school in CS) and (for the most part ;-) my activities have >been entirely honorable. (Gee, all these YOUNG people, is 36 passe? ;-) > C'mon, people. Marvin Minsky was a >hacker. McCarthy & Sussman were hackers. Bill Joy was a hacker. These >people don't exactly fit that mold. There are female hackers - I know women >that I would gladly describe with that word. > Let's not forget: Grace Hopper, John von Neuman, Eckert&Mauchley, Ken Thompson, Steve Bellovin, Tom Truscott, etc.... >> <Reid's paraphrase axed> > >> My own answer to my version of Katie's question is that we hackers, like >> all professionals, have an obligation to respect the rights of others and >> an obligation to help further our profession. A hacker who goes on the >> wrong side of the law is no different from a veterinarian or a bible >> salesman who uses his professional skills for unethical gain. : : >Ha - some sort of argument for a "programmer's bar" or a "hippocratic oath >of programming." I like the last term - especially with the prevalence of >computer viruses today. Instead of a deafening silence, the net should >provide Kate with responses that show what kind of a book we would like to >see written: one that shows that the word hacker is not loaded only with >negative connotations, but has more positive ones than negative. >> Brian Reid >Sean Colbath In actuality, there is a strong movement underway to strengthen the existing "certification" programs that exist in computing, and perhaps to require that all persons programming for federal contracts/grants/etc. be certified. This is not, *per se*, a Bad Thing, but there needs to be a very strong revision of the current definitions used by the certification programs. I seriously doubt that many of the illustrious names mentioned herein could fully pass the existing "Certified Data Processor" or similar exam programs without a *LOT* of difficulty. The preliminary information that I have received about these programs indicates that the main emphasis of the programs is to provide some kind of reassurance to the BUSINESS community that the person holding the title knows about the BUSINESS end of computing, which most of those reading this have little or no interest in. Certainly, I would have to learn a tremendous mountain of trivial information about COBOL, RPG, and mainframe environments to obtain the CDP that would be totally useless in the UN*X and network environments that we use. To make things worse, a CDP is the *minimum* sort of thing that they are considering for the "guru" types of positions that some of our leading net citizens enjoy. If there are further developments in the certification process that I have missed, I would dearly love to be corrected, BUT as the concept stands it is almost a fate worse than death to the academic guru. Oh, in terms of the "hacker" vs. "cracker" controversy.... Does it really matter what the names used are? The old definition of "hacker" could fairly easily be replaced with "wizard" or "guru" (despite the recent flamefest in comp.unix.wizards about the qualifications for that title) and let the unwashed/uninitiated use whatever terms they like. As a proud owner of the old style "hacker" accolade, I'm not happy about the abuse and misappropriation of the word, but I'd almost rather be able to self-claim the term "wizard" rather than have to have someone else bestow it. (Of course there should be a fair sprinkle of ;-)'s here and there.) -- Gregory G. Woodbury Sysop/owner Wolves Den UNIX BBS, Durham NC UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw ...dukeac!wolves!ggw [use the maps!] Domain: ggw@cds.duke.edu ggw@ac.duke.edu ggw%wolves@ac.duke.edu Phone: +1 919 493 1998 (Home) +1 919 684 6126 (Work) [The line eater is a boojum snark! ] <standard disclaimers apply>
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (11/21/89)
In article <1989Nov16.052001.1509@wolves.uucp> ggw@wolves.UUCP (Gregory G. Woodbury) writes: } I seriously doubt that many of the illustrious names mentioned herein }could fully pass the existing "Certified Data Processor" or similar exam }programs without a *LOT* of difficulty. The preliminary information that }I have received about these programs indicates that the main emphasis of the }programs is to provide some kind of reassurance to the BUSINESS community }that the person holding the title knows about the BUSINESS end of computing, }which most of those reading this have little or no interest in. Certainly, }I would have to learn a tremendous mountain of trivial information about }COBOL, RPG, and mainframe environments to obtain the CDP that would be totally }useless in the UN*X and network environments that we use. To make things }worse, a CDP is the *minimum* sort of thing that they are considering for }the "guru" types of positions that some of our leading net citizens enjoy. I like to think of myself as a hacker. I don't have a CS degree. For the last 4 years I've worked in a C/Unix environment. Prior to that was two years of straight assembler work. (Prior to that was 5 years of misc. programming). I passed the CDP exam (first try, with honors -- ahem (-: ) 3 years ago. I think the technical sections of the CDP exam would be trivial for any hacker worthy of the name. To prepare for the business and management sections I earned "Professional Designations" in Systems Management and Systems Analysis from the UCLA Extension program -- two classes a week for a little over a year. Not my favorite subjects, but doable if you really want that certificate. More to the point, the CDP isn't the only certificate issued by the ICCP. There's also the CCP (Certified Computer Programmer) which is strongly oriented to the technical, computer science side of the field (too much math for me, I'm afraid), and the CSA (Certified Systems Analyst) which has a stronger business orientation. BTW, none of the CDP exams I've seen even mention COBOL, or RPG, in their technical sections. The questions are at a much more abstract level, regarding general principles of hardware and software design, maintenance and use. -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com) Illegitimis non Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
ggw@wolves.uucp (Gregory G. Woodbury) (11/24/89)
In article <7875@ttidca.TTI.COM> hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (The Polymath) writes: >In article <1989Nov16.052001.1509@wolves.uucp> (Gregory G. Woodbury) writes: >}The preliminary information that ^^^^^^^^^^^ (nota bene) >}I have received about these programs indicates that the main emphasis of the >}programs is to provide some kind of reassurance to the BUSINESS community >}that the person holding the title knows about the BUSINESS end of computing, >}which most of those reading this have little or no interest in. : >I think the technical sections of the CDP exam would be trivial for any >hacker worthy of the name. To prepare for the business and management >sections I earned "Professional Designations" in Systems Management and >Systems Analysis from the UCLA Extension program -- two classes a week for >a little over a year. Not my favorite subjects, but doable if you really >want that certificate. This I am glad to hear. I did say that the information was of a "preliminary" nature (meaning - not from the official sources) and that I would be glad to be corrected. I DO appreciate it. >More to the point, the CDP isn't the only certificate issued by the ICCP. >There's also the CCP (Certified Computer Programmer) which is strongly >oriented to the technical, computer science side of the field (too much >math for me, I'm afraid), and the CSA (Certified Systems Analyst) which >has a stronger business orientation. Yes, I was aware of the distinction. >BTW, none of the CDP exams I've seen even mention COBOL, or RPG, in their >technical sections. The questions are at a much more abstract level, >regarding general principles of hardware and software design, maintenance >and use. I should be more careful about characterizing things on the basis of incomplete information. The "study guide" that I saw for the CDP was many years old and had lots of RPG and COBOL stuff in it. It was not an "official" representation of the test in any way, and I probably misunderstood the intent (back then). -- Gregory G. Woodbury Sysop/owner Wolves Den UNIX BBS, Durham NC UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw ...dukeac!wolves!ggw [use the maps!] Domain: ggw@cds.duke.edu ggw@ac.duke.edu ggw%wolves@ac.duke.edu Phone: +1 919 493 1998 (Home) +1 919 684 6126 (Work) [The line eater is a boojum snark! ] <standard disclaimers apply>