KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") (07/12/87)
> ... was listed in a prior message as a hacker who should not be > sent any more mail. Please do not use the word hacker in a pejorative sense. Many of us are proud to be called hackers. ...Keith
"Bruce_G._Kahler.rochX2"@XEROX.COM (07/13/87)
It's heartwarming to see that the MIT - AI Lab still has a few defenders of the faith.
ivanovic%vaxr.DECnet@LLL-ICDC.ARPA ("VAXR::IVANOVIC") (07/16/87)
Keith F. Lynch and Bruce G. Kahler both make approving noises about "hackers".
I have always associated the term "hackers" with persons who
. commit crimes ( break into machines that are forbidden to them )
. write code that is incomprehensible to others ( spaghetti code,
deliberately obscure code, or otherwise unmaintainable code )
. have a greater facility dealing with computers than with people.
I hope never to be accused of being a "hacker".
The people who design and implement the truely state-of-the-art systems that I
admire greatly ( "I wish I had done that!" ) are called "programmers",
"designers" or "software engineers", but never, never "hackers".
Keith and Bruce are naturally free to use the term "hackers" in any sense
they wish, but at the risk of being misunderstood by a large part of the
population, computer literate as well as computer illiterate.
-- Vladimir
------kenw@noah.arc.CDN (Ken Wallewein) (07/17/87)
>> ... was listed in a prior message as a hacker who should not be >> sent any more mail. > >Please do not use the word hacker in a pejorative sense. Many of us >are proud to be called hackers. > ...Keith Ditto. /kenw
MCGUIRE@GRIN2.BITNET (07/20/87)
> Date: Sun, 12 Jul 87 12:38:43 EDT > From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> > Subject: Hackers > > Please do not use the word hacker in a pejorative sense. Many of us > are proud to be called hackers. Seconded. Ed <MCGUIRE@GRIN2.BITNET>
UDCSTAFF@UDCVAX.BITNET (07/21/87)
>From: arpa%"ivanovic%vaxr.decnet@lll-icdc.arpa" 20-JUL-1987 21:55 >Keith F. Lynch and Bruce G. Kahler both make approving noises about "hackers". >I have always associated the term "hackers" with persons who > . commit crimes ( break into machines that are forbidden to them ) That person is called a 'Cracker'. > . write code that is incomprehensible to others ( spaghetti code, > deliberately obscure code, or otherwise unmaintainable code ) That person is called a 'Bad Programmer'. > . have a greater facility dealing with computers than with people. That is a stereotype. >I hope never to be accused of being a "hacker". I would be proud to be accused of being a 'hacker'. > The people who design and implement the truely state-of-the-art systems that I > admire greatly ( "I wish I had done that!" ) are called "programmers", > "designers" or "software engineers", but never, never "hackers". So, how do you distinguish a good 'programmer' from a bad 'programmer'? Some use the terms 'guru', 'wizard', and yes: 'hacker'. Where would DEC be if it was not for the 'hackers' in the early days. Even now! How many non-DEC programs on your system are designed by those individuals who would call themselves hackers. > Keith and Bruce are naturally free to use the term "hackers" in any sense > they wish, but at the risk of being misunderstood by a large part of the > population, computer literate as well as computer illiterate. 'Hacker' was a compliment before someone decided to use it as a way of describing those who break into systems and design bad code.
MCGUIRE@GRIN2.BITNET (07/22/87)
> Date: 15 Jul 87 16:18:00 PDT > From: "VAXR::IVANOVIC" <ivanovic%vaxr.decnet@lll-icdc.arpa> > Subject: Re: Hackers > > Keith F. Lynch and Bruce G. Kahler both make approving noises about "hackers". > I have always associated the term "hackers" with persons who > > . commit crimes ( break into machines that are forbidden to them ) > > . write code that is incomprehensible to others ( spaghetti code, > deliberately obscure code, or otherwise unmaintainable code ) > > . have a greater facility dealing with computers than with people. > > I hope never to be accused of being a "hacker". > > The people who design and implement the truely state-of-the-art systems that I > admire greatly ( "I wish I had done that!" ) are called "programmers", > "designers" or "software engineers", but never, never "hackers". > > Keith and Bruce are naturally free to use the term "hackers" in any sense > they wish, but at the risk of being misunderstood by a large part of the > population, computer literate as well as computer illiterate. > > -- Vladimir * Flame ON * Mr. Ivanovic gives us a good opportunity to review the history of our profession. These negative associations are indeed becoming the primary meanings of the word `hacker.' The word when coined did not have such negative connotations. Soon after it became a part of the vocabulary of early computer programmers, it was used by some people in a negative sense. I believe that makes both the original meaning and its secondary meaning legitimate. To set the record straight about the original meaning of the word, I am including here excerpts from a couple of published sources. This may convince Mr. Ivanovic that the word when coined did not have such negative connotations, and use thereof was, in fact, generally a token of respect. 1. With reference to the article `Software Security and the Pinstriped Pirate,' It should be pointed out that the term `hacker' has been terribly mangled lately by segments of the media--mostly because of heavily publicized computer break-ins of recent months. The term `hacker' should *not* be used in reference to criminal or illicit goings on--[its] proper usage refers to an individual who works intensely with computers and isn't satisfied with merely knowing the minimum amount required about a system to perform a given task. This term does *not* imply any illegitimate activities whatsoever. The misuse of the term `hacker' has been spreading thanks to the `copycat' nature of many news stories in the popular press, and now is the time to call an end to this erroneous usage. In a future column on the subject of hacking, I will suggest that the (rapidly being accepted) term `cracker' be used specifically to denote individuals who attempt to break into or otherwise misuse computer systems. That's what they're trying to do--to `crack' the security of these systems. _UNIX/WORLD_, v1 #2, `A Personal Note on `Hackers'', Lauren Weinstein, Editor at Large 2. I was first drawn to writing about hackers--those computer programmers and designers who regard computing as the most important thing in the world--because they were such fascinating people. Though some in the field used the term `hacker' as a form of derision, implying that hackers were either nerdy social outcasts or `unprofessional' programmers who wrote dirty, `nonstandard' code, I found them quite different. Beneath their often unimposing exteriors, they were adventurers, visionaries, risk-takers, artists . . . and the ones who most clearly saw why the computer was a truly revolutionary tool. [. . .] I came to understand why true hackers consider the term an appellation of honor rather than a pejorative. [. . .] I found a common element, a common philosophy which seemed tied to the elegantly flowing logic of the computer itself. It was a philosophy of sharing, openness, decentralization, and getting your hands on machines at any cost--to improve the machines, and to improve the world. _Hackers_, Steven Levy, p. 7. The true hackers of the fifties and sixties flourished at the MIT artificial intelligence lab. Working for respected AI scientists such as Dr. John McCarthy and Dr. Marvin Minsky, they helped create many of the software tools and techniques that today's designers and software engineers take for granted. I am pleased that the AI lab still maintains a sense of its history, which is also our history, no matter how we use the word `hackers.' * * * As an afterword, I'll state that I consider myself a computer hacker in the best sense, and that the technical skills that I developed as a consequence of my intense interest in computers is valued by my employer and my peers. I'll also give the lie to some of these misconceptions about hackers by saying that I am - A respected, law-abiding member of my community; - Responsible for maintenance of security on our central systems; - A voluble backer of complete documentation, coding standards, etc.; - Skilled in dealing with people in both formal and informal settings. * Flame OFF * Ed McGuire Systems Coordinator Grinnell College MCGUIRE@GRIN2.BITNET Disclaimer: My opinions do not necessarily represent those of my employers --but just ask them. P.S. Is there an appropriate mailing list for discussions of this type? A little bit of consciousness-raising goes a long way . . . ;-)
RALPH@UHHEPG.BITNET (07/23/87)
Date: 21-JUL-1987 10:13:38.02 From: Ralph Becker-Szendy RALPH AT UHHEPG To: GATEWAY::"info-vax@sri-kl.arpa",RALPH Subj: Re: Hackers Vladimir Ivanovic seems not to like the term "hacker" very much. I do. Unfortunately, i think we basically agree on what it means. I just like other points of views: a hacker is someone who - not only thinks that computers make very practical tools, - but the also are great fun to play with, - even to play with the ones you are not supposed to use (which i don't consider a crime as long as you don't harm anyone), - sometimes think its less fun to play with people than with a machine, - and unfortunately sometimes get carried away and write programs which look completely weird to others. But on the other hand: do you really understand Einstein's general relativity ? Doesn't it look like the mathematical equivalent of spaghetti-code ? As far as i can see, hackers are to be held responsible for a large part of the development in computer science and application; Unix, C, TeX, Apples, Crays and many other "brand-name products" started from playing hackers. Unfortunately, Vladimir is right in condemning the other side of hackers: the 14-year old kids with modems (and older ones who never grew up), who like to break into machines and do something like DEL *.* (or whatever it's called on that system). I say "unfortunately", because they are an aberration. BTW, this does not really belong into INFO-VAX, but i have strong feelings about it (being called a hacker myself, hopefully meant the right way).
BILL@ENGVAX.SCG.HAC.COM ("Bill D. Consoli") (07/23/87)
Please note that the following has nothing to do with whether I consider the term "hacker" to be a positive or negative thing. Being called a hacker doesn't bother me a bit (I have been called names which are worse) since the caller probably doesn't understand what he/she is saying anyway. "Sticks and stones may break my bones..." But I do have a problem some of the logic I have seen used in defense of the term, one case in particular. Ralph Becker-Szendy writes that a hacker is someone who >- not only thinks that computers make very practical tools, >- but the also are great fun to play with, I'm OK so far... >- even to play with the ones you are not supposed to use (which i > don't consider a crime as long as you don't harm anyone), Really?! I suppose then that you think it's great fun to break into someone's house or place of business while they're unaware, just to take a look around. >- sometimes think its less fun to play with people than with a machine, This probably comes down to a consideration of the people you play with, and all I can do is give my own personal point of view, which is that the majority of my friends are much more desirable company than an 8600. >- and unfortunately sometimes get carried away and write programs which > look completely weird to others. But on the other hand: do you really > understand Einstein's general relativity ? Doesn't it look like the > mathematical equivalent of spaghetti-code ? As a matter of fact, I do understand Einstein's general relativity. But this doesn't exclude me from understanding your point, which is well-taken. Now remember, all you hackers ;->, I'm on your side, but the term is going to mean slightly (sometimes more than slightly) different things to different people, and we should probably keep that in mind in discussions of this type. Bill D. Consoli "...Sometimes you hate it Hughes Aircraft Co. Sometimes you love it bill@engvax.scg.hac.com Sometimes you don't know bill%engvax@oberon.usc.edu What to think of it..." %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% standard disclaimer applies %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
bal%va.DECnet@NRL3.ARPA ("VA::BAL") (07/23/87)
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 ------
DHASKIN@CLARKU.BITNET (Denis W. Haskin, Manager, Technical Services) (07/24/87)
I know I should avoid propagating this topic (not because it isn't interesting and perhaps enlightening for some, but because Info-VAX is perhaps not the best forum for it), but... > Vladimir Ivanovic seems not to like the term "hacker" very much. I do. One is entitled to one's own opinion, obviously, but we don't live in a vacuum and one has to take into account society's definition of the term, not just your own. There were some *very* good discussions earlier of what 'hacker' now means to most people. > Unfortunately, i think we basically agree on what it means. I just like > other points of views: a hacker is someone who > [...] > - even to play with the ones you are not supposed to use (which i > don't consider a crime as long as you don't harm anyone), I *strongly* disagree, and someday you may find yourself arguing this point in court -- and losing (I believe the precedent is already there). If someone steals your car and goes joyriding, what would your reaction be? Or better, yet, jimmys your window every night and plays with your PC? Would you consider kids (or adults) breaking into an Army base and stealing an M-1 for a midnight romp a criminals? Is there a INFO-HACKER-PHILOSOPHY list somewhere to which this could move? % Denis W. Haskin Manager, Technical Services % % ----------------------------------------------------------------------- % % DHASKIN@CLARKU.BITNET Office of Information Systems (617)793-7193 % % Clark University 950 Main Street Worcester MA 01610 %
carl@CITHEX.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) (07/24/87)
> >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 > >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. Consider the following argument: by strenuously attempting to make technology (or data, or computing resources) more "accessible" by breaking into installations which do not wish to share such resources, crackers or munchers (a term in common use, at least at Caltech, for antisocial hackers) cause the personnel working at such institutions (and at the companies who supply software to them; e.g., DEC) to devote much time and energy to working on "security". This a) diverts resources from productive work; and b) does indeed lessen the accessibility of technology.
bal%va.DECnet@NRL3.ARPA ("VA::BAL") (07/24/87)
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 >>>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 >>>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. >Consider the following argument: by strenuously attempting to make >technology (or data, or computing resources) more "accessible" by >breaking into installations which do not wish to share such resources, >crackers or munchers (a term in common use, at least at Caltech, for >antisocial hackers) cause the personnel working at such institutions >(and at the companies who supply software to them; e.g., DEC) to devote >much time and energy to working on "security". This a) diverts >resources from productive work; and b) does indeed lessen the >accessibility of technology. But this is not the type of "hacker" that I was talking about. While "crackers/munchers" may indeed lead to increased time spent on "security," real hackers will still open their files to those on the system. They may even allow other people to have access to the machine through their own account, or may allocate them disk space, other resources, etc. The difference is that where a cracker breaks into other systems to get at information, the hacker willingly opens his files in the first place so that one doesn't need to "break in" to get at that information. Where a cracker looks for loopholes in system security, the hacker encourages responsible attitutes toward computer systems and data, so that "system security" is not necessary. --Brian LaMacchia bal%va.decnet@nrl.arpa balamac@athena.mit.edu ------
RMANGALD@CLARKU.BITNET (07/25/87)
Dear Listmembers:
Do you not think this discussion about hackers has gone far
enough? I would like to request all listmembers to please desist from
taking it any further, as it has already consumed disproportionate
amounts of network time and resources. If some members must continue
the discussion, I request them to do so privately.
Thank you.
Rahul Mangaldas.
----------------------------------------
Rahul Mangaldas (rmangald@clarku.bitnet)
Box 1311
Clark University
950 Main Street
Worcester, MA 01610-1477
----------------------------------------markv@uoregon.UUCP (Mark VandeWettering) (07/26/87)
[This is in response to the arguments that "hackers" compromise important data files and cause lost work...] First of all, I must confess that I see "hacker" in a purely Levy-ian sense of the word. Hackers are enamoured with the flexibility and astounding power that computers have. Manipulating complexity, in essense, making the computer sit up and dance is very rewarding. Occasionlly, I have come against the wrath of the department here, for doing activities which on the surface seemed dangerous to the integrity of the system. (Installing new kernels is generally a no-no, as well as testing kernel bugs by crashing the system) But after discussing things with various members of the department, things have smoothed out and they will probably offer me a position. Hackers are not a destructive influence. We may hog incredible amounts of disk space, but what else are people going to use it for. An underground movement at our university by us "hacker" types have people using more advanced debugging tools, more advanced programming languages, mainlinly because we had the initiative to go get the stuff. Sure, some snotty nosed adolescents will call themselves hackers and get thrills out of remving files. If they didn't have a computer, they would be saying things like "poo-poo" and giggling for hours. In the mean time, my goals are to spread information whenever possible and LEGAL. My software that I have written bears an agreement that it may be freely used and distributed for non-profit or educational use. I encourage others to do the same. | Mark VandeWettering | | member of UO-EXODOS - distributed operating system research group | | University of Oregon Computer and Information Sciences Department | | markv@uoregon.edu OR markv@uoregon.uucp |
bear@kuling.UUCP (Bjorn Sjoholm) (08/07/87)
In article <870724012654.05f@CitHex.Caltech.Edu) carl@CITHEX.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
)
) ) )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
) ) )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.
)
)Consider the following argument: by strenuously attempting to make technology
)(or data, or computing resources) more "accessible" by breaking into
)installations which do not wish to share such resources, crackers or munchers
********
You said it! Crackers DO make technology less accessible,
But not Hackers - that's a totally different thing.
)(a term in common use, at least at Caltech, for antisocial hackers) cause the
)personnel working at such institutions (and at the companies who supply
)software to them; e.g., DEC) to devote much time and energy to working on
)"security". This a) diverts resources from productive work; and b) does
)indeed lessen the accessibility of technology.
-- I am proud of beeing called a HACKER!
--
Bjorn Sjoholm, UUCP: bear@kuling.UUCP (...!seismo!kuling!bear)
Computer Science, ARPA: kuling!bear@seismo.css.gov
University of Uppsala, Sweden EARN/BITNET: bear@semax51.BITNET
Phone: + 46 18 309841