[Hpr] What's a "hacker"?
nido at foxserver.be
Wed Mar 20 03:16:23 PDT 2013
On 3/20/13 1:25 AM, epicanis+hpr at dogphilosophy.net wrote:
>> Why not just use the definition from how to become a hacker?
>> The definition as in the jargon file,
>> http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/hacker.html , is arguably the most
>> authoritative definition of the word.
> Since when would a hacker accept "appeal to authority"? :-)
On its own? Ever since there are cases where there is legitimate
expertise and expert consensus, together with a lack of interest of
persuing the matter further.
On this particular subject matter, an authoritarian answer is in my
opinion never a bad place to start finding a better definition.Please
notice though, I said 'arguably'.
> This is a topic that's been simmering in the back of my brain for a few years now, and of course
> it's all tangled up with a desire for pro-"hacker" activism which colors my thoughts.
> (Oh, crap on a stick, this is going to turn into an email essay, isn't it?...)
> I wouldn't use those sources because...well, for one thing, they're not definitions.
I disagree, as do you, two sentences down.
> The "How to become a hacker" document is a good one, but doesn't do anything but give some (completely accurate in my opinion) general examples of hacker characteristics (and then essentially says "become a computer programmer" which is one way to do it, but I suggest is neither necessary nor sufficient.)
> The jargon file has *8* "definitions", which appear to be based on the computer-programmer community over a quarter-century ago, and all of which I have problems with for modern usage.
8 definitions even, that's 8 more then not having any definitions! :p
> Going through them, they are (to paraphrase)
> 1. Someone who enjoys computer-programming theory.
> 2. Someone who REALLY enjoys computer-programming theory.
> 3. Someone good enough at hacking to appreciate a good hack.
> 4. Someone who is good at one particular computer program and/or a specialist computer programmer.
> 5. A fast computer programmer
> 6. Someone who is really good at something or really likes something.
> 7. Someone who likes puzzles
> 8. A criminal computer expert even though you shouldn't use this word for that.
> These all look like examples (and unfortunately almost entirely defined by "computer programming") rather than any definition one could apply to something that someone may engage in to determine if what they are doing counts as "hacking". The first five all boil down to "someone who's really into computer programming", which I think is neither sufficiently inclusive nor entirely accurate (I find it UNLIKELY that someone could get really good at computer programming entirely by rote, but such a person could hypothetically exist. I consider the idea of any activity devoid of creativity being "hacking" to be oxymoronic, so someone who was really good at/really "into" putting together software in a manner that was entirely by rote and devoid of creative input should definitely NOT be called a "hacker" - at least not a "software" hacker.).Furthermore, definition 3 is just plain circular. Definition 6 implies merely being "into" something would make one a "hacker", but being "into"
> something doesn't necessarily translate to being creative or even necessarily competent, and conversely I would NOT deny the term "hacking" to someone who wasn't especially familiar with or even fond of a particular area of knowledge but happened to spot and implement some clever application of it anyway.
I think the creativity is a required aspect of being a 'good programmer'
(to set it apart from 'hacker'). Don't get me wrong, uncreative people
are able to create computer programs; however, I suspect these rote
'programmers' to be responsible for gems like
http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Reusable-Code.aspx (what? copy/paste
worked before...). I don't see a problem with having a definition
include its requirements.
Also, if any of the 8 definitions was sufficient and complete on their
own, why give the other 7 definitions? 1 gives the example of a hacker
who specialises in the theory of programming, 2 is a counterpart example
who actually puts theory into practice. 3 refers to appreciating hacks,
which are not necesarily computer programs, and given how a 'hack' is
not defined as 'soemthing a hacker does', i don't see how that
definition circles. 5 is a specialisation into computer science of 6. I
believe you swapped 4 and 5 though.
> I think 7 is an almost-mandatory characteristic of "hackers", but doesn't seem like an appropriate definition (this is like defining an "athlete" as "someone who is strong".)
I disagree. Strength is something that can be acquired even when not
enjoyed. However, "enjoying the intellectual challenge of creatively
overcoming or circumventing limitations" is not something that is a
quality of the person itself. Enjoyment is key in this definition, and
is why your rote example person is not a hacker.
> 8 is "the media SAYS this is what hackers are but they're wrong" (which I agree entirely with, but isn't really helpful for defining what a "hacker" IS).
> I said a "hacker" is "someone who engages in hacking" (which is NOT defined by ESR, and the definitions of "hack" are pretty vague) because I suggest that the central definition that is important is that of the ACTIVITY, not the person doing it.1
I'd say it is general rather then vague. 'hack' definition 4 6 and 9
refer to 'hacking', but since we're talking about the meaning of hack,
there's a jargon definition for it too
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/meaning-of-hack.html , which, to my
summation, comes down to the "Hacking might be characterized as 'an
appropriate application of ingenuity'" by reviewing a few 'hacks' (in
the sence of, something that has been hacked). And now we have 3 entries
in the jargon file to explain what hacking/hacker/hack is. Something
tells me that even with all the resources in the world, we are never
going to bring this definition down to a size appropriate for a
dictionary, with a definition which is sufficient and complete enough to
satisfy the people it defines.
> I'm going to reject "computer programming" as a necessary element of "hacking" (though it is rightfully an extremely popular medium with which to conduct hacking - I'm only saying that an activity may still be "hacking" even if it's not "computer programming") in the modern era, and in particular in regards to "hacker public radio(tm)".
> Should we be assuming coleman lanterns, urban camping, and cooking are "of interest to expert computer programmers"? (I argue "no", obviously). I suggest that the pleasantly inclusive and wide-ranging topics that are appropriate for Hacker Public Radio implies that we accept the possibility for a listener to be a "hacker" in some field other than computer programming.
I, arguably an expert computer programmer, found the coleman, urban
camping and cooking episodes of great interest. Perhaps I appreciate the
engineering that went into the coleman lamps that makes that it still
functions 80 years after (do we even have programs this old). Maybe the
concept of not having a house to live in works as metaphore for blatant
ommisions of functionality in embedded devices. Maybe cooking is how I
feel like a compiler, taking a recipe (source code) and using it to turn
arbitrary ingredients into a meal (program).
Now I kinda don't know where I was going with this. Probably something
about a 'hacker' and 'expert computer programmer' being very much alike.
> At this point my thoughts split between two subtopics: the "purpose" of HPR, and exactly why I am currently using the definition that I mentioned, and I'm wondering if I shouldn't just shut up for now and either wait for someone else to chime in or just go add it to the topic list for my backlog of HPR episodes to record...
> Actually before I shut up let me take a stab at the former topic. I doubt this is "official", and I'm not even sure everyone (or anyone even) else would agree, but I would suggest that the "purpose" of Hacker Public Radio is the encouragement and support of "the hacker nature", which I will (intentionally vaguely) for now define as "the constellation of personality traits and thought processes that results in the likelihood that its possessors will regularly engage in hacking". In short, I suggest that Hacker Public Radio's "purpose" is to encourage people to become "Hackers", and to encourage those who already are "hackers" to become better.ones. Society would benefit greatly from a lot more hacking these days in my opinion.
> I'll stop for the moment before I start rambling worse than I already am...
> (Oh, and I like the idea of a round-table discussion - if everyone who wants to participate is willing to use the current release-candidate client so I can try/promote Opus support, I'd even be willing to set up and host a murmur server of our own to host it on. I would like to get it rolling in writing first though so I can try to get my own thoughts on it together...)
> Shutting up now...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Hpr