To get people to say "GNU/Linux", use "Free Software" in the right sense, and use the word "hacker" properly, you need to come up with a hack on its own. Just telling people how to use words doesn't do it. You need to come up with a hack to get them to want to use them in the way you intended. This is why I find it so strange that RMS's strategy has been to just tell people they're wrong. Clever marketing to change perception of these things would be just as worthy a hack as his three chopsticks, yet he somehow doesn't even seem to think on this wavelength.
The problem with being pedantic about word definitions is that definitions change with time and according to society's whims. This is why dude and gay today don't really mean what they used to mean. Individuals or even groups don't really have influence over what a definition should be if their desired definition goes against the flow of society's definition.<p>Rather than creating the term <i>cracking</i> and attempting to get that in the public mind to refer to what they currently refer to as <i>hacking</i> 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 <i>hacking</i>. 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.
I know RMS and ESR write this kind of stuff about words and <i>true meaning</i> all the time, but I don't get it really.<p>* For my friends, I am a <i>hacker</i> 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.<p>* For others (the mass media), <i>Max Vision</i> is a hacker because he broke into computers.<p>* For RMS Linus Torvalds is a hacker because he wrote a kernel for GNU and made it Open Source.<p>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 <i>trying to say</i>.
A hack is a clever, unanticipated use or repurposing of something. It's also solving a problem via a method which is expedient and clever, but inelegant or otherwise flawed: a hack as a clever kludge.<p>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.
This is one of the few things I agree with RMS on. However, I think I can capture what he's trying to say in a more succinct way: I like to think of a hack as an exploit or usage of something -- could be a computer, could be chopsticks -- in a way that is unanticipated or unintended.<p>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.<p>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 kid in the 90s and earlier 2000s, I had always understood "cracking" to be a specific subset of broader "hacking," be it of the "white hat" or "black hat" or "grey hat" variety. Specifically, developing "cracks" for locked software was how I had always understood the term "cracking." It involved a decent understanding of the Win32 API, assembly, and SoftICE to do effectively. That's what I think of when I hear the term "cracker" or "cracking." Has this activity taken on a new name?
Why not just come up with a new term? Languages change. When enough people agree to use a term to mean a certain thing, its meaning changes, regardless of the intentions of its original creator.<p>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 to see RMS reminding us about Der Lauf der Dinge, which is an incredible work of hacker-art. And naming Guillaume de Machaut. He could have brought the Art of the Fugue on the table too.<p>Great hackers of our times can and should have heavy-weigth cultural background, just as great hackers of the past.
Side note: I am amazed at how many ways there are to spell "tteokpaekki" (which happens to be one variation I've never seen before).<p>Tteokbokki, ddeokbokki, topokki, dukboki, ddukbokkie, dduk bok ki, ddukbokkie, dokbokki, dukpokki... it seems endless, almost like "Gaddafi".
Great Article. I don't really think that true hackers will get very many people that aren't hackers to care about the misuse of the term. Some security experts note the misuse of the word, but most of them continue to use it in the wrong context after doing so. The non-tech savvy parts of society don't care enough to remember the distinction, because it isn't their demographic that's being wrongfully maligned.<p>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.
> <i>Around 1980, when the news media took notice of hackers,</i><p>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:<p>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.<p>Hacker - (1) One who hacks. (2) One who does a lot of some activity, e.g. pinball.<p>[HoToGAMIT XIV]
You're not a hacker if work just work hard. Most 'hackers' I read about these days are just hard working software developers. I'll consider you a hacker if I look at what you produced and think somehow there was magic involved. Not just spending long nights cranking out code, which is still impressive, but it's not hacking.
A great article i almost agree with him on that, but in my understanding hacker is the person who does things for fun and uses EDIT[(his/her)] genius mind to solve problems in that sense those things always become more challenging which require an extra bit of intelligence.
I much prefer Venkatesh Rao's definition of hacking:<p><a href="http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2012/04/18/hacking-the-non-disposable-planet/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2012/04/18/hacking-the-non-disposa...</a>