
How to Become a Hacker (2001) - jeremynixon
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html
======
jwise0
I always thought that this article read more like "How to become Eric S.
Raymond". There's a lot in here that is really pretty painful to read 14 years
on; in particular, I find the argument that you have to start off by using a
Unix in order to become a proficient hacker to be particularly disingenuous.

The general aspect that I dislike is the idea that there is only one kind of
hacker -- the kind that fits into Eric S. Raymond's "the hacker culture". For
instance, he gives the monoculture that all hackers speak English; but just a
few weeks ago, we saw an article on HN about the old microcomputers of the
Soviet Bloc (I wish I could find the link now). And, perhaps, maybe my all-
time favorite hacks were executed by demosceners who spoke little-to-no
English. Are these people not hackers? I don't think you'd find anyone who
could argue that, but they are not part of Eric S. Raymond's monoculture.

The great essay that I have always wanted to read about How to Become a Hacker
would be answering the question of how to find joy in the minutiae, and how to
put all the little pieces together to make the most interesting things. But
this essay is not that.

~~~
yzzxy
Yes, the jargon file and this article are mired in specifics that are probably
bad. I also don't think the weirdness the jargon file gets into near the end
regarding personality archetypes is very valid, interesting or useful, and it
has always felt a little creepy to me. But I would say the core principles
mentioned at the top of this article are pretty valid:

1\. The world is full of fascinating problems waiting to be solved.

2\. No problem should ever have to be solved twice.

3\. Boredom and drudgery are evil.

4\. Freedom is good.

5\. Attitude is no substitute for competence.

That seems to capture the hacker spirit pretty well.

~~~
tptacek
One problem with these 5 "core principles" is that they apply just as well to
tax accounting. It's the places where ESR writes things that _don 't_ apply to
contracts law or mechanical engineering where he goes off the rails, which is
a telling problem with the essay.

------
davidw
> Trying to learn to hack on a Microsoft Windows machine or under any other
> closed-source system is like trying to learn to dance while wearing a body
> cast.

> Under Mac OS X it's possible, but only part of the system is open source —
> you're likely to hit a lot of walls, and you have to be careful not to
> develop the bad habit of depending on Apple's proprietary code. If you
> concentrate on the Unix under the hood you can learn some useful things.

I think this is still relevant. The best hackers I have known are people who
understand things pretty much from top to bottom, and having the source code,
and rights to use it are _invaluable_ for that.

If you want to create a business, maybe Mac OS or Windows might be better for
you (I get by with Linux just fine though), but if you want to be a "hacker"
in the sense of having a thorough understanding of your whole computing
environment, then you should probably be using Linux or BSD.

~~~
Delmania
I'd disagree with this. While OS X and Windows are not as transparent as
linux, there are enough resources on both that a hacker that wants can go deep
on them. In the Windows ecosystem, Mark Russinovich (creator of Sysinternals)
and Charles Petzgold readily spring to mind as people who fit the definition
of hacker.

~~~
ultramancool
The biggest difference is that if you run Windows, you have to be willing to
crack open IDA and read some assembly to really get a view of how your system
is doing something sometimes.

The main reason I keep a Windows box around is because so many Windows devs
seem to think that security through obscurity works and that no one is willing
to patch their binaries. Big mistake.

------
vezzy-fnord
One of my main beefs with ESR has always been his extremely hostile views on
infosec hackers, or as he pejoratively calls them "warez d00dz".

The technical proficiency of infosec hackers can be remarkably high,
particularly since it requires knowledge in all layers of the stack. To say
that someone like Michal Zalewski is not a hacker, is absolutely foolish.

But, according to ESR, if you're more concerned with "breaking" things than
"building" them, you're just a juvenile who's gonna get to five to ten in the
slammer after realizing you're not too bright. Under this definition, a person
with sophisticated reverse engineering and exploit development skills is not a
hacker, but someone who bootstraps Rails on a free Unix, is.

I also disagree that not using your real name is for losers, but that one is
pretty controversial.

~~~
crpatino
> I also disagree that not using your real name is for losers, but that one is
> pretty controversial.

It was a more innocent world, back then. I do not go to any measurable lengths
to hide my actual name, but I would rather not volunteer it to the social
engineering underworld either.

------
0xCMP
When I read this the first time I printed it out and read it over and over
again. It guided me to start my efforts to download linux and learn to program
in the 5 languages he mentioned. I took the "learn programming in 10 years" to
heart.

It's made me a programmer. The flaws people are talking about in the article,
I think, are true but irrelevant because the spirit of the article will still
guide people such as me.

His "how to ask questions" article is another great one.

------
philh
Note that ESR uses a stricter definition of _hacker_ than is usually accepted
on HN. On HN, anyone who can write code is free to call themselves a hacker.
But that doesn't mean you have the mindset. And to the extent that the hacker
community still exists in the sense of this document, it doesn't mean you're a
part of that.

I've complained about this before, it's something of a pet peeve of mine. I
don't describe myself as a hacker.

(But also a weaker definition in several ways. Hacking in the ESR sense
doesn't have to have anything to do with computers. This is in the jargon
file, I'm a little surprised that the HOWTO doesn't say anything about it.)

~~~
dhimes
Actually, on HN the definition pg has endorsed for hacker is as a synonym for
'tinkerer' (not his word). It's not necessarily about code, but it _is_ about
the mindset of curiosity + adventurous.

~~~
TeMPOraL
But then you have startups recruiting "rockstar hackers", sites that teach you
how to become a "hacker" by leraning the newest hip JS framework of this week,
and of course, the abominations like the term "growth hacking".

Spirit of hacking, as per pg's definition or the hacker culture, is still
strong on HN, but the word hacker itself seems to devaluate quickly. Just like
every other term that becomes fashionable, I guess.

------
atrilla
Simply put: be curious. As far as I know, the first hackers built train models
([http://tmrc.mit.edu/](http://tmrc.mit.edu/)).

Research, make stuff, learn.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
The first hackers probably made fire and flint hand-axes.

~~~
doodpants
The first hackers, instead of eating every piece of algae they encountered,
probably tried sticking two or three pieces of algae together, and then used
those clumps to propel themselves towards areas with larger concentrations of
algae.

~~~
towelguy
And of course, there's an emacs command to do that.

------
larrywright
This essay is far from perfect. That said, when I first read this I was a
Windows user and primarily a Windows desktop application developer, but I'd
started to explore what was outside the Microsoft ecosystem by playing with
things like Perl and Linux. Reading this document, along with the (far, far
better) book The Pragmatic Programmer, helped open my eyes to the world beyond
Microsoft.

All this to say: despite the negative comments here, this is worth your time
to read.

------
edem
I read this essay 7 years ago and it was a revelation for me. I started coding
right away and 1 year later I had a job as a programmer. This is a must read
for all programmers imho.

------
ta75757
I don't know. I personally have a mild dislike of self-applied labels like
this.

"You know what punkers don't do? Call themselves punkers."

~~~
GuiA
Yep. Just like "activist", "entrepreneur", "intellectual", "genius", and so
many others, "hacker" is a word without meaning when applied to oneself.

~~~
philh
The article does say that you _shouldn 't_ apply it to yourself. It permits
you to accept the label when others apply it to you.

------
tabrischen
I remember reading this about 10 years ago, feeling old now.

------
crdr88
I loved the part when he mentioned money, sex and social status as
distractions...This is such a claustrophobic way of thinking about the
stereotypical hacker.

------
longlivegnu
this is really really old.

I enjoyed reading the CaTB book a lot. Unfortunately ESR appears to sometimes
be very rude in his opinion of others :/

~~~
yitchelle
Rude may not be the right wording here. I would put it as passionate or strong
beliefs. Sort of in the same vein as RMS.

~~~
numbsafari
Having met both in person, I think "rude" is rather quite apt in both cases.
You can be passionate and principled and not a jerk, or a murderer, or a
scoundrel, or even rude.

~~~
yitchelle
Well, you are correct. I stand corrected. Thanks for providing some insight
into both of their personality.

------
halayli
learn how to learn and you have to be naturally curious. The rest follows.

This to me(subjectively) defines a hacker. Rarely do you reach dead ends when
you know how to learn.

------
ilamparithi
This is where I found PG's essays for the first time.

------
slashnull
Eric S. Raymond gave meaning to my life.

