Talk:Hacker definition controversy

message: It's odd that the controversy should have so little discussion. Of course, the piece is fairly well balanced, with a meticulous (even anal) time line, and is out of the way of the main "hacker" article.
This article could benefit from some real research and cleanup. An heavily etymological discussion like this needs a boatload of references in order to be accurate and useful. radimvice 05:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Finding references on usage of slang in particular subcultures is very, very difficult -- even if they're widespread. All the material here seems verifiable to me but it's wishful thinking to suppose we'll ever have "a ton" of references. Nilbert 11:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

message: Here, this will help get the discussion going:  >:-D
Popular usage:
 People who use technology creatively: "Geeks" make "inventions" (?)
 People who break into computer systems: "Hackers" perform "hacks"
 People who defeat copy protection schemes: "Crackers" make "crackz"
Pedantic usage:
 People who use technology creatively: "Hackers" make "hacks"
 People who break into computer systems: "Crackers" make "security compromises" (?)
 People who defeat copy protection schemes: ??? make ???
It seems to me that the pedantic usage creates ambiguities with other words.  Moreover, in an attempt to pay respect to a handful of dorks from the 1970's (c'mon -- model railroad club?), it inadvertently disses the modern cracking community whose members are more numerous and arguably more virtuosic. Preceding unsigned contribution from 70.169.152.43 circa 05:21, 12 March 2007
:The semantic loading of "Jargon" is less POV (or at least, a less uniformly unfavorable one) than "Pedantic". The closest approximation I can recall of a technical jargon usage for the copy protection instance would be "Pirates" make "Warez".
:Yes, the ambiguities exist; cf operator overloading. However, the popular usage is a later development; the ambiguities are long-established, and any confusion in the meaning is a result of the inability of modern media provide any degree of nuance while providing information. Your "handful of dorks" remark rather understates the impact the classic "hackers" have had in shaping the nature of the modern world (and I hope the irony of my writing that on a Wiki's Talk page doesn't escape you). I'd suggest tracking down the referenced "Rolling Stone" and "Psychology Today" articles to get a better understanding of the scope of that (still-pervasive) influence.
:The modern cracking community gets more respect here than most places; while the origin of the "cracker" usage is noted, and the widely recognized Jargon file entry includes the cracker use only as "depreciated", at no point does the article assert that hacking is exclusive of cracking, and there are multiple cautions about the potential POV inherent to the Jargon File source. Your claim about the cracking community being "more numerous and arguably more virtuosic" is POV, unattributed, and uses poorly defined terminology; I'll ignore it for the moment until the argument is better phrased.
:POV disclosure: I subscribe to the belief that the true meaning of "hack" has only one meaning, but that it is sufficiently zen and subtle that it encompasses most of the apparently contradictory and ambigious meanings. I suggest those confused check out the new classic hacker novel "Diamond Age", and note the discussions between Nell and the Constable about intelligence and wisdom. Abb3w 05:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hacker vs Cracker 

message: I've added the weasel Template, the first paragraph could be rewritten to not use those words (by some, many, and so on). 84.56.13.54 07:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it (after adding it back in from an earlier revert), having made an effort to fix it. If someone feels more work is needed, they should put it back and note instances here in the talk page, or just {fixit}. Abb3w 21:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: grammar?:
"In the non-technical community, the concept of wizard programmer is poorly known, {and}
{as compared to} the meaning of hacker as someone who 'hacks into' a system by evading or disabling security measures."
Hopiakuta 18:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Abb3w 21:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar? 

message: I put a deletion request for this category, please make comments and suggestions. A.J. 10:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Hackers]] 

message: While examples from the Google Groups archive of USENET should be explicitly included as references, the content of this article is fundamentally sound. Given this, I can can imagine no justification for this edit made by Comperr, nor the movement "Hacker (computer security)" to "Cracker (computer security)2". Historically, the Hacker-Cracker distinction is limited only to a subset (admittedly large but proper) of the post-1983 computer expert community. The distinction was never made prior to 1983, and is seldom recognized by any other social community. Until comprehensive and authoritative sources for such a claim to a "correct" definition can be supplied, such changes can only be assumed as based on personal prejudice and reverted accordingly.
And yes, I consider myself a hacker in the non-intruder sense, and restrict my very intermittent cracker work to systems that I either have legal title of ownership on, systems I have been made responsible for operating and administrating by the holder of such legal title, and work on pencil-and-paper theoretical attacks. My desire for the rest of the world to understand the difference in terminology does not make the technical jargon usage "correct". Abb3w 20:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Comperr]] Changes 

message: The following unsourced gibberish has been removed:
:Note that the Movie Tron and the media hacked the term in 1982/83 probably as a cross between a bad golfer and a bad computer person and then the perjorative took on a life of its own.
Anyone who wants to beat it back into coherence and defend it with some research, feel free. Abb3w 03:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gibberish 

message: I have removed the following unsourced claim:
:It is clear that the technical comtemporary use eminates from the Ham Amateur radio community and the early technicians that were involved with radio/tv and computers.
I'll do some checking into this, but wasn't able to quickly turn up anything. The links to the model RR community and the writing communities seem more tangible. Abb3w 22:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HAM radio connection? 

message: The term "hacker" in the computer world, as far as I have known since the early 80s, is the one that is the most self evident - Following one Merriam-Webster definition meaning "to cut or shape by or as if by crude or ruthless strokes".  In other words to "hack" at an original creation, as if with an axe, to force-fit it into being usable for a task not intended by the original creator (even if the creator and the hacker are the same person).  
This definition has no real positive connotations, except for the idea that the hacker is capable of doing successful modifications, and so has some sort of marketable skills. There is always, however, the understanding that a more skillful, or technical, logician could have produced successful modifications that would not be considered a “hack job”.
This definition embraces the security breaking crowd as hackers since their objectives are to modify original code in order to produce their desired results without any regard for how the modifications themselves are viewed.
The definition is similar to other, non-computer based, uses of the term “hack-job”.  For instance, a professional modification of a production sports car into a racing machine would not be considered a hack-job, but a cobbled together backyard mechanic’s result could be.  Even though the outcome of a race of the two machines could not be assumed, a quick inspection would instantly reveal the difference in the level of professionalism of the designers.
The use of the term “hack”, “hacker”, and “hack job” is still always used negatively in my industry (industrial control logic) where many times, logic created years earlier needs to be modified for production goals many times over.  If a co-worker had the task of modifying your previous code, and you are embarrassed at the quality you had produced, you may give the warning “Watch out, I did a hack job in there”.  You would then be known as the hacker of that project, and be forced to hang your head in shame because the new programmer would have to spend additional time to comprehend and straighten out your work.  One would only refer to himself, or herself, as a "hacker" in a self-deprecating manner.
My credentials: 1981 HS graduate while owning earliest versions of home computing machines (TI, Timex, IBM-XT, etc).  1986 graduate BS Electrical and Computer Engineering - University of Wisconsin.  19 years experience industrial control logic design.
Swamprink 22:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this meaning (similar to kludge) is not well-represented in the article. I also work in industrial control logic, which is interesting -- I had thought that this sense was widespread, but perhaps it is more specialized than I thought? OTOH, a Google code search for "HACK"  strongly supports the idea that this meaning is common in programming. --DavidHopwood 03:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've now added some of your text to the article; hope you don't mind. --DavidHopwood 04:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An original home programmer's definition 

message: When playing with technical things that are separate from my job or training (not necessarily IT), and approaching it in a figure-it-out-as-you-go-along manner, I would describe that as hacking. Is there a better word to use for this?  ike9898 15:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a better work for this concept? 

message: Many people differentiate the two definitions by using either "ethical" or "unethical", or more commonly "white-hat" and "black-hat" respectively, to describe the hacker.  Usually a hacker is defined as someone who is exceptional with the use of a computer, most likely beyond the scope of even the computer literate, regardless of how they use such skills.
stcochran16 13:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethical v. Unethical