RavenBlack ([info]ravenblack) wrote,
@ 2003-10-30 09:14:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Ooh, this makes me cross.
What Is a Hacker?

The Jargon File contains a bunch of definitions of the term 'hacker', most having to do with technical adeptness and a delight in solving problems and overcoming limits. If you want to know how to become a hacker, though, only two are really relevant
The Jargon File talks absolute bollocks about the word hacker. It claims that using it as a synonym of cracker is deprecated. No it's bloody not, Mr Jargon File, it's common usage, quite the opposite. What you mean is you, like Mr How To Become A Hacker, want it to be deprecated because you want your precious word back, just like wiccans claim that witch means wiccan even though it's fucking obvious that common usage has it meaning the green evil warty cauldron broomstick variety. Claiming that the common usage is deprecated just gets those people you'd have call themselves hackers (or witches) into trouble when they do so in non-wanker company and are misunderstood.
There is a community, a shared culture, of expert programmers and networking wizards that traces its history back through decades to the first time-sharing minicomputers and the earliest ARPAnet experiments. The members of this culture originated the term 'hacker'. Hackers built the Internet.
...The term has since shifted into the popular perception with a different meaning, thanks to movies, so should no longer be used in its original manner if you wish to avoid causing possibly-dangerous confusion. (I skip a part of the document here)
The hacker mind-set is not confined to this software-hacker culture. There are people who apply the hacker attitude to other things, like electronics or music - actually, you can find it at the highest levels of any science or art. Software hackers recognize these kindred spirits elsewhere and may call them "hackers" too
No they fucking don't. They just fucking don't. Okay, I concede that maybe one 'software hacker', one named 'Mr How To Become A Hacker', calls non-computer people hackers, but nobody else does. What a load of absolute toss that claim is. (I skip another bit)
There is another group of people who loudly call themselves hackers, but aren't. These are people (mainly adolescent males) who get a kick out of breaking into computers and phreaking the phone system. Real hackers call these people 'crackers' and want nothing to do with them.
The general public and the media also call these people hackers, which means that's what the word means. Stop crying about it, let them have the word you whiny fucking pansy. "Mo-o-om, people who break into computers have stolen my word, make them give it back!" Here's a tip, chap - mom can't make them give the word back - language is a horribly democratic beast, and the people have cast their ephemeral votes to let the criminals have hacker. It's not yours any more. (I skip another bit)
Unfortunately, many journalists and writers have been fooled into using the word 'hacker' to describe crackers; this irritates real hackers no end.
It irritates real wankers no end. They haven't been fooled. Journalists and writers generally (except, say, yourself, and the Register's Orlowski) use words to get their points across to their audience, and the audience will understand 'hacker' to mean its real meaning, not its outdated meaning. More of them than would understand 'cracker' that way, since that's more commonly a biscuit or derogatory slang for white-folk.

Why must 'hackers' and 'witches' insist on fighting a losing, nay, lost battle for these words? 'Witches' already have a working alternative - they can call themselves wiccans, and be done with it. As for hackers - come up with a new word for yourselves, or use an old word that fits the bill. If you don't want it to just be computer-related, how about 'eccentric'? That has mostly the right connotations. How about 'maverick'? That's rarely used for anything else, and it's a pretty sweet word too. Or how about, as you even used in the damn description, 'wizard'? With genre-prefixes that's already pretty much understood to be what you want - "computer wizard", "programming wizard", etc. I'm sure it would be understood if you said someone was a "golf wizard", too.

If you wanted to be a bit more inventive, you could take a different old word that nobody uses any more, something with a vaguely appropriate meaning, and steal it. How about calling yourself a "phrenic"? It sounds like a noun, but until now, it isn't. You'll have a better chance of fighting for a word to mean what you want if you start with a word that isn't already in common usage meaning something else.



(Post a new comment)

The problem with that.
[info]benhimself
2003-10-30 02:22 pm UTC (link)
"Oh, so phrenic just means hacker, right?"
"Well, yes, but only in that hacker means [blah blah blah not cracker blah blah.]"
"Hacker, right."

(Person goes to other person)

"Hey, what's that guy mean when he says 'phrenic'?"
"He's a hacker who hacks into people's computers and steals their password and shit."
"Oh, gotcha."

~

I like "Maverick", though.
"I wouldn't make that bet, John. Bob's a real golf maverick."

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: The problem with that.
[info]ravenblack
2003-10-30 08:56 pm UTC (link)
Mm, I suppose in fighting for a new word one would have to make absolutely sure it doesn't get associated with one's lost word.

"Oh, so phrenic just means hacker, right?"
"No! It means..."

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]thewronghands
2003-10-30 02:52 pm UTC (link)
Why must 'hackers' and 'witches' insist on fighting a losing, nay, lost battle for these words?

The people who get stroppy about it are usually the people that are emotionally invested in the word itself. So they see people using this word that they care about to mean a bad thing, and get all bent out of shape over it. I don't think that 'hackers' or 'witches' are denying that the common uses of those words have strong negative associations. They're just trying to be loud enough to force a social and linguistic change in terminology.

And people wonder why I squirm at "hacker". If taken one way, you're an immature idiotic criminal. If taken the other way, you're a dogmatic idealist pushy fundie-activist sort. I'll use the term in cases where I know the audience will not take it badly, but I still prefer "security geek".

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]ravenblack
2003-10-30 08:57 pm UTC (link)
According to Mr How To Become A Hacker, "security geek" is much more specific, too, since "hacker" might mean that you play golf, or fly aeroplanes, or enter pie-eating competitions.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]feonixrift
2003-10-30 09:40 pm UTC (link)
"pie geek"

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Phrenic? Mental!
[info]kineticfactory
2003-10-30 06:44 pm UTC (link)
"phrenic" sounds too much like a derogatory abbreviation of "schizophrenic". (See also: "tard") Chances are the word "phrenic" would devolve to mean not "computer criminal" but "weird and/or crazy person", encompassing anybody from the mumbling, bearded guy in the back office to the mumbling, dishevelled itinerant on the streetcorner.

(Reply to this)


[info]tomassey
2003-10-31 06:47 am UTC (link)
Mr Raymond does have http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html in his favour. I wish more people would read it before asking me how to, you know that thing with the jumpy doodad. The doodad!! With the thing!!! Jumpy!!!!! And aardvark is still a better word than phrenic.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]ravenblack
2003-10-31 07:30 am UTC (link)
Gah, I had to look, of course, and I found this...

Don't claim that you have found a bug
When you are having problems with a piece of software, don't claim you have found a bug unless you are very, very sure of your ground. Hint: unless you can provide a source-code patch that fixes the problem, or a regression test against a previous version that demonstrates incorrect behavior, you are probably not sure enough.
...
This means that very probably it is you who are doing something wrong, not the software.


What about if it crashes? It's you crashing the software, not the software being broken! Grarararh!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]feonixrift
2003-10-31 09:43 am UTC (link)
Patch of the morning: "Bad user. Don't do that."

Then again, there are some input sets so horrifying that only the most stalwart and anal of developers would ever include sufficient verification code to catch them safely. Not to count all the developers who seem to believe that just users deserve their system crashes .. and have no *clue* about which errors are unavoidably common.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]ravenblack
2003-10-31 09:48 am UTC (link)
Mm, I certainly wouldn't suggest that developers must find all bugs before releasing a piece of software, just that they really oughtn't be getting annoyed with "I've found a bug" reports for not being "I am a stupid user who did something wrong", when the program has crashed the machine.

Except possibly on Lunix, where the programmer can justly say "piss off, it's only supposed to run on [distribution] [version number], and I don't care about its behaviour on your [same distribution] [version number plus one] because the libraries on that version are fucking stupid."

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]feonixrift
2003-10-31 11:15 am UTC (link)
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~bart/fuzz/fuzz.html

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…