
On Hacking - nonrecursive
http://www.stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html
======
gfodor
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.

~~~
tjr
From another perspective, I read _The Hacker 's Dictionary_ fairly early in my
education / career as a programmer, and have (at least usually!) used the word
"hacker" the way Richard describes.

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?

~~~
gfodor
Well sure, the strategy of "tell people what words should mean" will work for
some people like yourself, but clearly has not been enough to have the common
use of the words switch over. I don't really know what the solution is, but
there seems to be a very hard line in RMS's mind as to what the domain of
"hacking" can be. He's extremely clever, a hacker, and a genius in certain
areas (the GPL is such an amazing hack) but at the same time keeps banging his
head against the wall using failed strategies instead of trying to hack his
way to a solution. When was the last time you heard about something RMS did in
the way he presented his ideas to be more receptive to others and thought
"hey, that is pretty clever and a nice hack." I certainly can't think of
anything, but he's clearly capable of doing it.

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.

~~~
netcan
I heard a lobbyist give a seminar once. He told a story about a campaign to
influence for environmental laws. 75% of the fight was capturing a few key
wors, get them associated with his side. Custodianship. Responsible. Etc.

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.

------
PakG1
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.

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.

~~~
ekianjo
Cracking as a word is not new, it was widely used in the 80s and 90s. Not so
much nowadays, that is true, but it's way more appropriate than "hacker" when
you talk about security hacking.

------
atmosx
I know RMS and ESR write this kind of stuff about words and _true meaning_ all
the time, but I don't get it really.

* 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_.

~~~
SimHacker
Please don't use RMS and ESR in the same sentence. That's as bad as using Free
Software and Open Source in the same sentence. ESR coined to term Open Source
to attack RMS's definition of Free Software, and they are mortal enemies.

[http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-
point.h...](http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html)

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://www.computerworld.com.au/article/195096/stallman_want_freedom_don_t_follow_linus_torvalds/)

[http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1646814](http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1646814)

[http://www.efytimes.com/e1/fullnews.asp?edid=31990](http://www.efytimes.com/e1/fullnews.asp?edid=31990)

[http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/unjustifiable_c...](http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/unjustifiable_criticism_richard_stallman_linus_torvalds)

~~~
atmosx
Thanks for the pointers :-)

I knew about Linus and RMS not getting along but didn't about ESR and RMS
rivalry :-)

------
millstone
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.

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.

~~~
zimpenfish
That depends - is the unpolished and jury-rigged software bringing in money to
keep the business alive and pay my salary?

(NB: might depend on how pragmatic you are about programming)

------
throwawaykf
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.

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.

------
aspensmonster
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?

~~~
tricolon
I have always considered what you describe to be a specific subset of
"cracking": "warez" or "warez cracking".

------
mattangriffel
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.

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.

------
gbog
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.

Great hackers of our times can and should have heavy-weigth cultural
background, just as great hackers of the past.

------
jcromartie
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).

Tteokbokki, ddeokbokki, topokki, dukboki, ddukbokkie, dduk bok ki, ddukbokkie,
dokbokki, dukpokki... it seems endless, almost like "Gaddafi".

~~~
jpatokal
Those are all half-assed phonetic attempts. Revised Romanization is
unambiguous: 떡볶이 = tteokbokki.

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.

------
phaus
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.

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.

~~~
GhotiFish
To be honest, I like the word hacker as it stands in its nebulous state now.
It serves as a reverse shibboleth
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth))
for geeks. Signalling to those who understand it, that they are part of an "in
group". That is a useful social tool.

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!

------
jpmattia
> _Around 1980, when the news media took notice of hackers,_

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]

------
deleted_account
Other cool RMS hacks:
[http://www.stallman.org/photos/hacks/](http://www.stallman.org/photos/hacks/)

I guess.

------
ProAm
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.

~~~
jonny_eh
I took the article to mean that hacking is the production of code for no
purpose other than playful curiosity. How clever the code is should have no
bearing on it.

~~~
goshx
I understand hacking as:

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.

------
TIJ
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.

~~~
na85
> uses his genius mind

Hackers aren't necessarily male, or geniuses.

~~~
pionar
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-specific_and_gender-
neut...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-specific_and_gender-
neutral_pronouns#Generic_he)

It's a perfectly cromulent use of "his".

------
natural219
I much prefer Venkatesh Rao's definition of hacking:

[http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2012/04/18/hacking-the-non-
disposa...](http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2012/04/18/hacking-the-non-disposable-
planet/)

------
jackaltman
If the new word had been something better than "cracker" it would've had a
better chance of catching on.

------
BIair
Hacker, cracker... I still don't know how to use 6 chopsticks!

