Talk:Hacker/Archive 3

message: I'd like to include the unofficial Hacker Emblem (the glider from Conway's Game of Life). Tyler 19:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of hacker emblem 

message: See linky. Abb3w 04:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Cbrown1023 talk 04:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would point out that pre-block activity levels (circa 160 per month) were consistent with oral sex, which is under long term semi-protection, and hacker has only a slightly lower (75% vs. 85%) ratio of vandalism. Abb3w 06:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Semi-protected I'm not going to force this article to be protected if others don't agree, but this article has had a constant, low-level of vandalism for a very long time, and there is so sign that it will stop. It seems people think they are hackers if they can "hack" the hacker article. (Oddly, very few make it to Hacker (computer security), which would be a more appropriate target). My primary watchlist went serenely quiet while this article was semi-protected. —Pengo 04:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to restore [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection|semi-protection]] made 

message: Semi-protect against IP vandalism. On 2006-12-11, Pengo [semi-protected] the hacker page, due to the long history of vandalism. During the following one month period, no vandalism reversions (IP-based or User-named) were required. On 2007-01-12, User:Centrx [removed semi-protection], in the hope that "protection is no longer necessary". By my count of the 65 revisions since, roughtly seven in ten have been either vandalism, or reversions of same. I assert the evidence indicates User:Centrx was wildly optimistic. Since the earlier semi-protection appeared to reduce both anonymous and non-anonymous vandalism, I suggest this indicates semi-protection may be adequate. Abb3w 03:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Cbrown1023 talk 04:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would point out that pre-block activity levels (circa 160 per month) were consistent with oral sex, which is under long term semi-protection, and hacker has only a slightly lower (75% vs. 85%) ratio of vandalism. Abb3w 06:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Semi-protected I'm not going to force this article to be protected if others don't agree, but this article has had a constant, low-level of vandalism for a very long time, and there is so sign that it will stop. It seems people think they are hackers if they can "hack" the hacker article. (Oddly, very few make it to Hacker (computer security), which would be a more appropriate target). My primary watchlist went serenely quiet while this article was semi-protected. —Pengo 04:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{la|Hacker}}

message: I've heard alot about writing code But I have yet to find a manual or anything that teaches you how. Can someone help?
:Code means source code, and coding is synonymous with programming. If you can't find a programming manual or tutorial on the Internet, then you haven't looked very hard. Try starting at www.python.org or try wikibooks (i don't know if these are any good): book 1 book 2. In future you should ask your questions at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. —Pengo 22:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rarely, it might refer to the encoding methods used to represent protocols (search for Internet RFC's; there's a couple thousand that detail how protocols are supposed to work) or encryption (GPG's source is publicly available; if you can't master the RSA algorithm, any of the more complex methods is hopeless to attempt). These are also of high educational value for Hackers of various sorts. Abb3w 04:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Code 

message: === Abudal jaleel malik ===
Removed:
*Abudal jaleel malik,Now a well known hacker of pakistan who made a modified version ISLAMIC windows of winXP with many included features of mac and linux.Microsoft has demanded him from gov of pakistan
...since
* Main references on the web seem minor 1 2 3 (see web site credits in last)
* Included "features" from above seem mostly cosmetic
* Such compromise of Windows is at most trivial slipstreaming and keygen work, not substantial novel coding or development of a globally used coding language such as C++ or html
* Report that "Microsoft has demanded him from gov of pakistan" is unsourced, possible original research
* Punctuation, spelling, and choice of abbreviations unencyclopedic caliber to boot
Probably another ego link. "Wahoo, I wuz a hackor!" Abb3w 04:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egomaniacs, self-promoters, minor bit-part players, and other non-notables 

message: Removed:
*Abudal jaleel malik,Now a well known hacker of pakistan who made a modified version ISLAMIC windows of winXP with many included features of mac and linux.Microsoft has demanded him from gov of pakistan
...since
* Main references on the web seem minor 1 2 3 (see web site credits in last)
* Included "features" from above seem mostly cosmetic
* Such compromise of Windows is at most trivial slipstreaming and keygen work, not substantial novel coding or development of a globally used coding language such as C++ or html
* Report that "Microsoft has demanded him from gov of pakistan" is unsourced, possible original research
* Punctuation, spelling, and choice of abbreviations unencyclopedic caliber to boot
Probably another ego link. "Wahoo, I wuz a hackor!" Abb3w 04:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Abudal jaleel malik]] 

message: Removed:
*Michael Urbanski — The creator of the Project49 (P49) Operating system. Program was finished, but nevber released to the public due to a copyright law. At age 16 he still continues to work on open source projects for the University of Minnesota.
Inserted from an IP address in the Minnesota area. I find no mention of a "Project49" operating system via Google Groups or Web search, strongly suggestive of non-notability; further, that copyright law precluded release indicates he was arguably not the "creator" anyway. The "nevber" typo is consistent with the level of carelessness I have seen from young (18 and under) college students in their writing for classes. At this time, I have no further remarks consistent with WP:CIV. Abb3w 09:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Urbanski 

message: I have removed the link to http://2600.ir/ as possible link-spam. If I'm mistaken and there is a valid reason for the link discuss here (If consensus, add it back). —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 12:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick check of site via Google shows forum with 56 members; non-notable IMHO. "Spam" may not be the right flavor of pink lunch meat product, but it's close enough for Iron Chef. Abb3w 12:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed link 

message: Is it just me or does this article seem to be degress-ing, because this current version looks very different from the work of art of a month or two ago, a version, I might point out, that was worthy of a star. I understand the need to remove POV's and lines that may appear self-promotional, but if this over-editing isn't curbed, this article will soon deteriorate to the level of this garbage: Hacker (computer security) -- Kerowren (talk • contribs • &site= count) 03:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: please state which date you are referring to (so readers of your post may look at it on this articles history) - capi!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.82.22.166 (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronic Over-editing and Encyclo-nazism 

message: This article introduces hacker as a relatively static, modern term. I think it would be of tremendous value to give a tour of the evolution of the term from MIT all the way to the public/media exposure in the late 80s (especially as a result of the Morris Worm and DOS viruses) and then on to the various efforts to control its usage. I'm sure there are good sources for this. Levy's book is a good start for the older historical bits. -Harmil 14:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know I think there actually used to be, but somewhere in the countless of unecessart edits it was edited away. Fun huh? -- Kerowren (talk • contribs • &site= count) 20:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mostly over in Hacker definition controversy nowadays; any discussion of the varied history of the meanings brings up the flamewar over which one is the TRUE meaning, whether cracking is hacking, et cetera. Keeping them separate makes for more stable and NPOV entries. Abb3w 15:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style and approach 

message: I find it interesting to note that the only visible references to Richard Stallman are in the 'References' and 'External Links' section. Any particular reason? 
Arjunshankar 08:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Several extensive trimmings in April and May, where the entire "Categories of hacker" section was removed, and the "Skilled Programmer" subsection was pointed over to "List of Programmers". This may not have been an improvement. Abb3w 16:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rms 

message: By what criteria is Bill Gates considered a hacker? Does anyone even know when he last wrote a program or wrote an article about programming? By most criteria, he would be better classified as a businessman or even philanthropist. — Loadmaster 18:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, he's under media personalities for much this reason. And second, Read The FuFine Citations; in days of yore, he qualified, if perhaps to a lesser extent than Woz. Abb3w 16:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose the weasel words in the sentence introducing the list are sufficient to make it clear that some of these famous personalities may not (or may no longer) be true hackers. — Loadmaster 23:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Gates? 

message: User:Kerowren has complained loudly about this and related articles on my talk page (User_talk:Rtc#Misinformation_related_to_Hacking_related_articles) and written to several users asking for their comment here. I hope we can solve the issues professionally. After all, we all want a correct article, don't we? So please don't give mere opinion on the article, but give sources if you disagree about something. To eliminate some problems, I did some changes to the article to prevent misunderstandings that it seemed to provoke for Kerowren. --rtc 23:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The goal here is to present a unified summary of the term Hacker and Hacker culture within this article Hacker.  Further detail should be provided in branched articles of some title.  How to best divide and describe the details of the topic are of course open for discussion, and certainly in need of further improvement.  The changes of the past few weeks are a vast improvement in organization, diff June4-18.  ∴ here…♠ 02:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I share Kerowren's concern. I'll also state flat out: the current piece has developed severe defects. At the most trivial, claiming that the definition of a hacker as one who "illegally breaks into computer and network systems [...] has been coined by the mass media" is false, as a review of the HDC timeline events will show. Also, claiming "the academic hacker subculture developed in the 1960s [...] in academic computer science environments [...] fused with the technical culture of the pioneers of the Internet" demonstrates similar gross ignorance of the history of the computer cultures prior to the World Wide Web. The whole thing is also badly lacking in citations. Abb3w 17:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some truth in what you say, but you clearly exaggerate the problems, especially compared to the previous state. The HDC timeline merely shows that the term had been used in this sense already before the mass media did. But it certainly coined it. I hope that there is no doubt about that! The part you quote about the development of the academic hacker culture has been written be ESR and was moved from the previous hacker culture article to here. I guess it is supposed to be a summary of . I can't say whether it's right or wrong, as ESR himself admits that he joined only after 1977. About citations, I agree, but at least there are now citations (and there are sentences rich in content—you better want some wrong sentences rich in content, so you can easily criticize them, than some true, almost-tautological weasel statements as previously). It has been much worse before. So if you think that anything demonstrates gross ignorance, please show some sources better than ESR's that explain how it really was! I am much interested in them, but as I already said, mere subjective feelings don't help us much. --rtc 21:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ESR history essay is not cited (if it is being used a reference), and is highly POV-suspect due to his position as an advocate as well as historian. As for the my primary objection, please look up the dictionary definition of coin; when used as a verb, and not having to do with numismatics, it is synonymous to "invent". If the word was "used in this sense already", the media could not have invented it. Popularized, yes — but that is a horse of an entirely different color. Abb3w 18:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We all agree that further improvement is necessary.  What I don't agree with is Kerowren's concerns that current work is somehow harming the article...  All are invited and encouraged to jump in and improve the many spots needing work, Kerowren and Abb3w in particular. ∴ here…♠ 20:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I now cited the ESR history essay and attributed the whole to ESR. I also changed 'coined' to 'popularized'. I agree with your concerns that ESR's essay may omit some essential things, or may contain severe inaccuracies (although I don't think the summary given here is by itself fundamtentally wrong or misleading). However, to my knowledge, no account of the hacker history exists that has been done by a professional historian (at least not yet), so we have no other option than to cite such things if we don't want to do original research. If you have better sources, please tell me about them. --rtc 22:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review of June 2007 

message: I came to this page expecting to find something about hacking methods.  Besides a few minor bits on trojans and such I couldn't find anything of the sort.  Could someone please make this page less about people and more about hacking? 130.11.43.246 19:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a how-to. Perhaps you should look at Wikibooks. --rtc 06:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Improvement 

message: I wanted to change the sentence
:»Since the mid-1990s, it has been largely coincident with what is now called the free software movement and the open source movement.«
to
:»Since the mid-1990s, it has been largely coincident with what is now called the free software movement and the Open Source Initiative.«
It is undisputely that the open source movement isn't the same as the free software movement, altough open-source software is almost always free software, too. The article of the open source movement has been poor and there were no reference indicating it exists at all. So it was decided to merge the article with the article about the Open Source Initiative. Is there an open source movement outside the Open Source Initiative? --mms 09:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know a lot of people who love open source software, but who would never go near anything connected with Eric Raymond, so I'd have to say that there is. Poindexter Propellerhead 11:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do they also distance themselves from RMS or could they be subsumed to the free software movement? --mms 11:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think of them as non-aligned. You can't really be an RMS devotee and still be OK with open source (but not free) software, eh? Poindexter Propellerhead 11:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Conferences to do with FOSS will attract both Free and Open source developers. You don't have have "free software" events that only "free software" people attend, nor do "open source" people exclusively go to their own open source events. That would be ludicrous. The crowds are one and the same. While individuals have their personal preferences for which expression to use, and their beliefs in how different the terms are, in reality the licenses and philosophies behind the two are far more the same than they are different. Personally I find the differences trivial. However, you can't just say "Free software movement" or just "open source movement" without offending someone with the omission, so it seems you have to mention both. The Open Source Initiative is a totally different entity and shouldn't be mentioned in this context. —Pengo 12:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: +1 (Too much said on the subject already, so I will leave it at that) Achitnis 13:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: RMS himself states "free" as in freedom, not as in price or as in free beer. So "free software" is "open software". Indeed, you can produce "free software" and sell it for a price.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.26.195.126 (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there an open source movement? 

message: An encounter of the academic and the computer security hacker subculture occurred at the end of the 1980s, when a group of hackers, sympathizing with the Chaos Computer Club (who disclaimed any knowledge in these activities), broke into computers of American military organizations and academic institutions. They sold data from these machines to the Soviet secret service, one of them in order to fund his drug addiction. The case could be solved when scientists from the environment of the academic hacker subculture found ways to log the attacks and to trace them back. 23, a German film adaption with ficitional elements, shows the events from the attackers' perspective. Clifford Stoll, one of the system administrators who helped to catch them, described the case in his book The Cuckoo's Egg and in the TV documentary The KGB, the Computer, and Me from the other perspective.
::"Academic hackers" do not do such things by the definition of the term. Security hackers (crackers) do. Even if a person who is an academic hacker have done this crime (or any other crime, by the way), it is still important how it was estimated from the side by other academic hackers who seem "disclaiming any relation to that group". Hence this material cannot be used how it has been used in the article: as an argument that academic hackers and crackers are "mostly the same". This interesting story belongs somewhere else. Audriusa 05:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read that paragraph again. You seem to have misunderstood it completely. A group of computer security hackers, sympathizing with the Chaos Computer Club, which is an association of computer security hackers (but which disclaimed knowledge of these activities—they subscribe to some sort of white hat hacker ethic that is an extended version of Levy's academic hacker ethic reinterpreted for the computer security context; which is itself quite controversial, because what Levy's original ethic intends to say might be seen as fundamentally incompatible to what the CCC has made out of it—see the German article ), broke into into computers of American military organizations and academic institutions. People at these institutions from the academic hacker culture (especially Clifford Stoll) helped to trace and catch the criminals. Eric S. Raymond says: "Clifford Stoll's absorbing tale of how he tracked Markus Hess and the Chaos Club cracking ring nicely illustrates the difference between `hacker' and `cracker'. Stoll's portrait of himself, his lady Martha, and his friends at Berkeley and on the Internet paints a marvelously vivid picture of how hackers and the people around them like to live and how they think." (; ESR uses "hacker" instead of "academic hacker" and "cracker" instead of "computer security hacker") There is nothing controversial about this. There are no academic hackers who committed a crime here; in fact, they cooperated with the FBI to help to stop the crime. I do not see an argument that claims "that academic hackers and crackers are 'mostly the same'", either; the contrary is the case. Please reformulate the paragraph as you see fit to avoid such misunderstandings. PS: I added links to the related TV documentary on youtube, so you may have a look at it and judge for yourself. --rtc 23:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hackers break into American military 

message: I removed these lists; they should be described in the main articles and, if some of these should be mentioned at all here, then this should be done in context and not in such a "hall of fame" fashion. --rtc 06:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists 

message: As I outlined in my previous comments, this article is biased towards US University and IT-related people only and has no right to purport itself as representing world opinion or understanding on the notion of a hacker. Therefore, I have temporarily added the  warning marker to warn non-IT related people and non-native English speakers of the dangers of interpreting this article in its current form.
In line with my previous comments, the new article I was originally proposing is work in progress and will be ready for submission shortly.
Andrew81446 (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are at the wrong article here. Please go to Hacker (computer security). This is what you are looking for. Thanks. --rtc (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Systemic and Cultural Bias: Fixes In Progress