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.
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?
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.
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.
> 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 chooses not to change his way of presenting it because he's presenting a philosophy, rather than simply trying to convince people to agree with him. I used to think he was a nut, the more time that passes, the more I realize just how perceptive and correct RMS has been about a great many things...
The truth is 'hack' as a phrase is becoming overly used, and taking value away from the actual terminology he is trying to advocate, a terminology that is associated to cleverness.
Not everything can be clever. At some point the usage of the phrase turns into marketing hype as a way for someone to gain the attention of a particuliar group.
"A xxx for hackers'
"how I hacked xxx"
It's really just a way to grab people who self identify with that word, they don't really mean those pitch lines. It's not FOR hackers, it's TARGETTED at "hackers".
Not every single accomplishment of rms' is a hack. That ambiguity is exactly what is killing the value of that word. Not every action of a hacker is a hack, nor are all the solutions they seek 'hacks.'.
> 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 guess this doesn't quite qualify and he may not even be the originator of the idea, but I thought it was pretty clever:
What's different about the way you see things is the fact that you care about those things or at least are interested in them. RMS' approach tends to fall down when he's trying to convey his points to a larger audience that doesn't have an inherent interest in what he's talking about. He tends to take as self-evident why people should care about the things that he cares about, and goes straight to arguing about his position on those things.
If the intended audience for his philosophies were only some especially elite group of hackers, that'd be fine (although it'd still be a pretty hard sell for a lot of them :), but I think he sees his intended audience as being all of humanity. When he talks about why Free Software matters, he might be more convincing if he spent more time talking about why openness matters, or even why software matters period. I have a feeling he's so deep into his world that he actually can't see things from the perspective of someone who doesn't understand why software itself is an important thing (never mind how it should be written or distributed).
Tangent: I agree with a lot of the principles that he stands for, but have a hard time trusting his thought processes. Whenever I've read his writings about the origins of his philosophy or the justifications for it, it always seemed like he decided up front what he wanted his philosophy to be, then retconned a bunch of really detailed and articulate rationalizations for it. I don't get the impression that he burns any cycles trying to understand other people's perspectives or playing Devil's Advocate against himself. That's why whenever anyone talks about his consistency as being a virtue (and they always do), it actually makes me trust his reasoning even less.
As a counter, I would say it is sometimes important to fully define something before you seek to implement it - particularly if that thing is subtle or complex or difficult to grasp. And often the person who defines something is a different person to the one who finds a way to implement it. I for one, like the rs' of the world.
Plus, I like to think perhaps there was some subtlety to his point about playfulness.. and maybe one who hacks for a living is just a hack.
I guess typical solution is to come up with a new word with desired meaning. This way 'programmers' became 'developers' and 'system administrators' are becoming 'dev ops'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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) 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!
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
