On Hacking
stallman.org
stallman.org
I've also spent a fair bit of time listening to his lectures and reading his articles, and likewise have (at least usually!) used the terms GNU/Linux and "free software" the way he recommends, because I see where he's coming from and tend to agree.
Does he need clever marketing? I don't know; he didn't for me. What's different about the way I see things?
I think he probably has some personal moral code that prohibits him from trying to hack systems above a certain level of abstraction. Computers and security policies are below it, people's minds, emotions, and opinions are out of reach. In other words, the art of marketing is completely outside it.
YC on the other hand has a much higher bar for what is hackable, including things like getting user growth through clever marketing and viral loops, and keeping your startup solvent by selling breakfast cereal. RMS wouldn't go near these types of things, but they are in line with the hacking ethos.
I think he chooses not to change his way of presenting it because he's presenting a philosophy, rather than simply trying to convince people to agree with him. I used to think he was a nut, the more time that passes, the more I realize just how perceptive and correct RMS has been about a great many things...
The truth is 'hack' as a phrase is becoming overly used, and taking value away from the actual terminology he is trying to advocate, a terminology that is associated to cleverness.
Not everything can be clever. At some point the usage of the phrase turns into marketing hype as a way for someone to gain the attention of a particuliar group.
"A xxx for hackers' "how I hacked xxx"
It's really just a way to grab people who self identify with that word, they don't really mean those pitch lines. It's not FOR hackers, it's TARGETTED at "hackers".
Not every single accomplishment of rms' is a hack. That ambiguity is exactly what is killing the value of that word. Not every action of a hacker is a hack, nor are all the solutions they seek 'hacks.'.
I guess this doesn't quite qualify and he may not even be the originator of the idea, but I thought it was pretty clever:
http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/richard-stallman-softwa...
Feels kind of evil and orwellian. rms (without the premeditated scheming) does something similar but blunt and people resist. We intuitively feel that if you make us use your words, you get power over us.
If the intended audience for his philosophies were only some especially elite group of hackers, that'd be fine (although it'd still be a pretty hard sell for a lot of them :), but I think he sees his intended audience as being all of humanity. When he talks about why Free Software matters, he might be more convincing if he spent more time talking about why openness matters, or even why software matters period. I have a feeling he's so deep into his world that he actually can't see things from the perspective of someone who doesn't understand why software itself is an important thing (never mind how it should be written or distributed).
Tangent: I agree with a lot of the principles that he stands for, but have a hard time trusting his thought processes. Whenever I've read his writings about the origins of his philosophy or the justifications for it, it always seemed like he decided up front what he wanted his philosophy to be, then retconned a bunch of really detailed and articulate rationalizations for it. I don't get the impression that he burns any cycles trying to understand other people's perspectives or playing Devil's Advocate against himself. That's why whenever anyone talks about his consistency as being a virtue (and they always do), it actually makes me trust his reasoning even less.
As a counter, I would say it is sometimes important to fully define something before you seek to implement it - particularly if that thing is subtle or complex or difficult to grasp. And often the person who defines something is a different person to the one who finds a way to implement it. I for one, like the rs' of the world.
Plus, I like to think perhaps there was some subtlety to his point about playfulness.. and maybe one who hacks for a living is just a hack.
Another, possibly more so, is Simon Phipps of the OSI.
Rather than creating the term cracking and attempting to get that in the public mind to refer to what they currently refer to as hacking is a waste of time. It's far easier to create a new word to refer to what is known to folks like Stallman as hacking. The only reason to not do so is due to sentimental value and emotional attachment to a definition that is not accepted by society, and it is society that sets a language's evolution. As such, such sentimental value is moot in the grand scheme of things.
* For my friends, I am a hacker because I can fix their computer and I can easily edit a word document using keyboard shortcuts. They don't know or care about anything else.
* For others (the mass media), Max Vision is a hacker because he broke into computers.
* For RMS Linus Torvalds is a hacker because he wrote a kernel for GNU and made it Open Source.
I don't see why I need to lecture the first two groups about a word which clearly states the meaning they have in mind and by that I mean: When they use it, I totally understand what they are trying to say.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h...
Insofar as RMS considers Linus Torvalds a hacker or thinks anything positive about him, that would be because he made the Linux kernel GPL, not Open Source. RMS says of Torvalds: "Well, you can see that he is a person who doesn’t believe in freedom."
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/195096/stallman_want...
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1646814
http://www.efytimes.com/e1/fullnews.asp?edid=31990
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/unjustifiable_c...
I knew about Linus and RMS not getting along but didn't about ESR and RMS rivalry :-)
It's that second definition that makes me reluctant to self-identify as a hacker. To my mind, hackers produce hacked-together software, which is unpolished and jury-rigged. As programmers, we should be sheepish about our hacks, and seek to correct them - not wear them proudly.
(NB: might depend on how pragmatic you are about programming)
As he says, the utility does not really matter: it could be just a neat trick, or pure entertainment value, or intellectual gratification, or a security vulnerability, or something genuinely useful.
Ironically, by his own definition, I also think most of RMS' own work cannot be called "hacking". Gcc and emacs, for instance, are simply very useful software engineering projects, but in themselves not hacks as a whole. On the other hand, his one work that is clearly a clever hack is the GPL, which uses copyright to transfer control of rights to those whom it was not intended for.
As a philosopher, it annoys the hell out of me that people use the term "begs the question" incorrectly, but I've come to accept that at this point its probably not incorrect anymore.
Great hackers of our times can and should have heavy-weigth cultural background, just as great hackers of the past.
Tteokbokki, ddeokbokki, topokki, dukboki, ddukbokkie, dduk bok ki, ddukbokkie, dokbokki, dukpokki... it seems endless, almost like "Gaddafi".
Arabic is considerably worse because there's no standard that's even close to accepted, and the dialectal variation between different regions is so vast that they might as well be separate languages.
I wonder if we could get Stallman to update his footnote about the MIT administration's idea that security breaches "need not be invariably condemned." Clearly they have changed their minds on this issue.
For those that don't understand, it doesn't confuse them that much, the difference between the two competing definitions is subtle enough at an introductory level as to not sound awkward.
I find that people will never really be confused if you used RMS's definition, so long as they know that competing definition exists, even if they don't agree with that definition!
Some context from ancient history: When I arrived at MIT in 1982, there was a glossary in a book given out during orientation (How To GAMIT) with defintions of "Hack" and "Hacker", and it provides a snapshot of how the words were used before it was associated with cracking:
Hack - n. A trick or prank. For example placing a nipple on the Great Dome (...) (1) To goof off, talk randomly, just hang around. (2) To apply oneself, work hard, try earnestly. Example: a computer hacker. Also connotes fanaticism.
Hacker - (1) One who hacks. (2) One who does a lot of some activity, e.g. pinball.
[HoToGAMIT XIV]
I guess.
Creating your own way to achieve goals
And usually you need to do that because there is no Manual or defined path to do what you want.
Programming on its own is not hacking. I read almost everyday people claiming to be hackers because they put together a script to consume an API... and the API has documentation. This really grinds my gears.
My first hacking goal, for instance, with less than a year owning a computer, was to change the start button on windows to have my name instead of the "Start" (yes, I had my first computer at late 90's). Pretty ridiculous goal, but it was fun and when I succeeded that felt really good.
Hackers aren't necessarily male, or geniuses.
It's a perfectly cromulent use of "his".
http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2012/04/18/hacking-the-non-disposa...