Talk:Hacker ethic

message: Could it be possible to say the hacker ethic is "both A and B" instead of "either A or B"?
--Papyromancer 19:40, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
:No. The second ethic is more grey hat ("Deface if you want to, just don't cause any permanent damage"-ish), the first more white hat.
:I guess one could also say that the first one defines white hat hacker ethics, the second one defines black hat hacker ethics (although black hat hackers might reduce that sentence to the part about fun and exploration) and the mix of both would represent grey hat hackers.
:Either way, there are multiple definitions and they shouldn't be mixed by saying hacker ethic is both -- it really is either the first or the second or both, depending on which hacker subculture (that'd be a sub-subculture then) you ask.
:I don't think the sentence "[..] hacker ethic is either: [..] and/or [..]" works, tho, so that might need a bit of rephrasing. What about "hacker ethic is either [..] or [..] or the combination of both" or something along those lines? I'm sure some native speakers could come up with a better version than that. -- Ashmodai 02:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: aputtu That is interesting. I did some research into the term "hacker ethic" since 2002 and hasn't been able to come across usage of the term before Levy (1984). From what I understand, the term "hacker ethic" does not make sense as such to Stallman, despite that ethics is a main concern to him. That the term "hacker ethic" may have been handed down by Stallman could seem likely at first glance, but I don't really think that it is the case. Ethics and hacking is different traits according to Stallman, and he does not apply the term hacker ethics onto what he does himself. The original version of The Jargon File (maintained by the old school guys) doesn't include terms like "ethic" or even the word "social" - talk about hardcore geek, was my first reaction studying it. The closest I got to ethics were the entry ""The Right Thing" - which is used very broadly to all kinds of ethical-irrelevant actions as well. A comparison of The Jargon File and The New Hacker's Dictionary edited by Eric S. Raymond shows that Raymond has added a whole social dimension to the hackers selfconception that at least didn't appear in the Jargon file. In a online live-session (was it for Newsweek, can't recall) I got to ask Steven Levy whether he had coined the term, which he said he did - I can't find the session online anymore however. It is therefore interesting to hear that the term "hacker ethic" was in use at Berkeley, and I would love to hear more about it. For historical reasons it would be very interesting to know more about Bill Gosper's conception of hacking and ethics, since he is said to have influenced the hacker culture profoundly at the MIT AI Lab back in the 60's. 
Folks,
I'm not a hacker either - just interested in the culture and how the minds of hackers, good software engineers, and programmers work.  I work at an hardware and software design company.  I'm surrounded by folks who love to hack (that is, solve problems). One doesn't have to be a hacker to write or quote others' description of hacking.
If you feel that this entry is redundant - please, add your knowledge and information!  
I think the "white hat" and "black hat" terminology is very confusing.  Am I supposed to think of Linux when I read that?
Thanks!
TSWcontentlady (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Both A and B 

message: Let me pontificate here for just a few sentences.
The term "Hacker Ethic" predates 1984 when somebody wrote it down in a book.  I was a computer science student at the University of California at Berkeley in the late 1970s, and we were all taught that term at that time.  It may have indeed been handed down by Richard M. Stallman of MIT, but in the '60s of early '70s, because it was extremely well known and used throughtout the Computer Science academic community at my time at Berkeley.  I am not going to make a federal case about it -- it does matter, after all, who first publishes something outside of that academic community, I suppose.  However, it was indeed written down in internal manuals and publications at Berkeley, and I dare say at all other Computer Science think tanks in the country, if not throughout the western world.
Second, in the original sense of the term Hacker Ethic, there was never a concept of a "black hat".  The very concept of hacker was good.  A hacker was one who had great powers to make computers do what they ought to do, all for good.  They could control any computer any way they wanted to.  There was never a conception of doing so with any but altruistic or benificent intentions.  Hackers were heroes.  They furthered the Hacker Ethic, that computers were supposed to benefit mankind, and that computing ought to be available and plentiful, and software that made the computer do more things was to be shared freely, so that people's computer, that they paid a lot of money for, after all, would actually do more of what it was supposed to do in the first place.  To hold one's computer for ransom by refusing to provide software to make it do what it was supposed to do in the first place was wrong.  To try to bankrupt people by charging exorbitant rates for every new functionality was wrong, even unthinkable.  Hackers returned the power to the people by making that computer do their's, the owner's, bidding, not the bidding of some software vendor.  The term "hacker" was reserved for the very best, not just any standard-issue programmer.  It was a term of honor.  It was always "white hat".
The way that the general over-culture has come to use the term "hacker" is a shame.  They really ought to use the term "cracker", which is what hackers of the original sense of the term have suggested.  Anybody purporting to suggest that a "black hat" subculture exists within hacker culture has no clue what a hacker really is.  Such a person is a Cracker, and all that "black hat" culture is Cracker Culture.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qodesh (talk • contribs) 18:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: aputtu That is interesting. I did some research into the term "hacker ethic" since 2002 and hasn't been able to come across usage of the term before Levy (1984). From what I understand, the term "hacker ethic" does not make sense as such to Stallman, despite that ethics is a main concern to him. That the term "hacker ethic" may have been handed down by Stallman could seem likely at first glance, but I don't really think that it is the case. Ethics and hacking is different traits according to Stallman, and he does not apply the term hacker ethics onto what he does himself. The original version of The Jargon File (maintained by the old school guys) doesn't include terms like "ethic" or even the word "social" - talk about hardcore geek, was my first reaction studying it. The closest I got to ethics were the entry ""The Right Thing" - which is used very broadly to all kinds of ethical-irrelevant actions as well. A comparison of The Jargon File and The New Hacker's Dictionary edited by Eric S. Raymond shows that Raymond has added a whole social dimension to the hackers selfconception that at least didn't appear in the Jargon file. In a online live-session (was it for Newsweek, can't recall) I got to ask Steven Levy whether he had coined the term, which he said he did - I can't find the session online anymore however. It is therefore interesting to hear that the term "hacker ethic" was in use at Berkeley, and I would love to hear more about it. For historical reasons it would be very interesting to know more about Bill Gosper's conception of hacking and ethics, since he is said to have influenced the hacker culture profoundly at the MIT AI Lab back in the 60's. 
Folks,
I'm not a hacker either - just interested in the culture and how the minds of hackers, good software engineers, and programmers work.  I work at an hardware and software design company.  I'm surrounded by folks who love to hack (that is, solve problems). One doesn't have to be a hacker to write or quote others' description of hacking.
If you feel that this entry is redundant - please, add your knowledge and information!  
I think the "white hat" and "black hat" terminology is very confusing.  Am I supposed to think of Linux when I read that?
Thanks!
TSWcontentlady (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  history of the term 

message: 1th of June 2008, aputtu: The following sections makes absolutely no sense to me. I think it is a bad joke, but even if it wasn't it still does't make any sense to me:
: Both Himanen and Torvalds were inspired by the Sampo Finnish mythology. The Sampo, described in the Kalevala, was a magical artifact constructed by Ilmarinen, the blacksmith god, that brought good fortune to its holder; nobody knows exactly what it was supposed to be. The Sampo has been interpreted in many ways: a world pillar or world tree, a compass or astrolabe, a chest containing a treasure, a Byzantine coin die, a decorated Vendel period shield, a Christian relic, etc. In the Kalevala, compiler Lönnrot interpreted it to be a quern or mill of some sort that made flour, salt, and gold out of thin air.
where is the reference?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.12.27.197 (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finnish mythology? 

message: This article seems to have sat here for a long time with tons and tons of incorrect capitals that I finally fixed in this edit.  Doesn't anyone who works on this article ever look at WP:MOS or know about standard Wikipedia conventions? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR TOO MANY CAPITAL LETTERS! 

message: Over 3 - 5 November this article was considerably expanded by a number of new editors as part of a class project. While these edits were made in good faith, I think the need to "put something in" has led to excessive detail and has not improved the article, and unless objections are expressed here I am minded to revert it to this version by Linuxguymarshall at 23 October. Comments welcome. JohnCD (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class project has unbalanced the article? 

message: This page seems to suffer from a lack of distinction between the point of view of certain experts and fact. For example:
:Levy notes that, at other universities, professors were making public proclamations that computers would never be able to beat a human being in chess. Hackers knew better. They would be the ones who would guide computers to greater heights than anyone expected.
If the paraphrasing is accurate, the referenced work seems to be more opinion-oriented than factual; rather than a history book, it's a review.
These views should be decoupled from facts—and ultimately, the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmyersturnbull (talk • contribs) 08:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referenced work seems opinion-oriented, not factual 

message: There is no mention whatsoever of female hackers.  The earliest hackers seemed to be exclusively male, but women entered the scene at some point, and are a significant minority today.  Coverage should be added for people like Radia Perlman, for example. Reify-tech (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Re "today": may not be relevant: whether the "hacker ethic" described in the article applies to contemporary communities is very doubtful... Equinox ◑ 13:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female hackers? 

message: I've just merged this article to hacking (innovation), which was formerly titled Hacker (programmer subculture). Please see the discussion at talk:hacking (innovation)#Grand merge for the rationale and a plan for moving forward. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it was unmerged, and fwiw I approve of the unmerging. The page needs work but I am not sure a merge is the answer. It seems to give a great deal of weight to Levy, for instance, probably a good idea in the history section, and sure, he's a published and objective source. But surely there are others. Elinruby (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grand merge 

message: You can't blame this article for being completely focused in computers but the term hacker is not limited to this context. There are "life hackers", "biohackers" (who use gadgets as a means, not as a finality) and overall any other area where "playful cleverness" can be applied to as by Stallman's quote in the article. I'm not sure how to add this information in though - a new section with just one paragraph seems less than ideal and just a note on the introduction while every other sections focuses on computers would also be awkward. If there is an article on Wikipedia about non-computer hacking in general maybe we could add a section with an "main article: xxx" template? 201.27.72.206 (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focused on computers 

message: YOU CANT TEACH HACKING!
and there is no such thing as white/black hackers
there are hackers and there are cybercriminals!!
 do not follow the military and media propaganda BS.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rek2 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why teach hacking? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hacker ethic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720150305/http://gabriellacoleman.org/biella/Coleman-Golub-Hacker-Practice.pdf to http://gabriellacoleman.org/biella/Coleman-Golub-Hacker-Practice.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120107033753/http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/faculty_bios/view/Gabriella_Coleman to http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/faculty_bios/view/Gabriella_Coleman
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: One important thing is missing in Hacker Ethics: whatever you do, always protect younger people, no matter what religion, no matter what race, no matter what skin color, no matter if right wing, middle wing or right wing, no matter if male, female, non-binary, no matter if Little Pony or Baby Dragon. One can morally hardly do something wrong if protecting younger people, and it would also be a mindset that would find global acceptance and would lead to global coexistence. Protecting does not mean, that you later are allowed to take their goods or their virginity, just because you helped. If you live that Categorical Imperative in an altruistic way it would give you meaing in your live. 178.82.215.219 (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect younger people 

message: "ALL DATA/INFORMATION SHALL BE FREE" ist technically maybe not completely correct. ALL HELPFUL DATA should be free. If data helps to save peoples lifes it would be an insult to humanity if you need to pay for.
CounterExample:
Distributing cyber-weapons for free is maybe not the best idea (euphemism)
31.10.132.168 (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  BugReport Hacker Ethic paragraph "Info shall be free"