Terminology: "Hacker" vs "Cracker".
$kr1pt...@salmahayeksknockers.edu
the term 'cracker.
I believe that language evolves, and it is not only anachronistic,but
pedantic, to adhere to an original usage of a word, when the popular
usage has moved away from the original one.
Of course, not everyone shares this view, and I'm interested in hearing
everyone's (civil!) thoughts on this matter.
--
............................................................................
"...Take the Anti-Defamation League [of B'nai B'rith]... It's actually an
organization devoted to trying to defame and intimidate and silence people
who criticize current Israeli policies, whatever they may be."
-Noam Chomsky, Language and Politics
............................................................................
www.geocities.com/pentagon/bunker/1022 swan_...@my-dejanews.com
Tim Haynes
> Many claim that the term 'hacker' is often inappropriately substituted
> for the term 'cracker'.
Missing single quote reinserted.
> I believe that language evolves, and it is not only anachronistic,but
> pedantic, to adhere to an original usage of a word, when the popular
> usage has moved away from the original one.
And of course, `pedantic' is the correct & right way to go, so no problem
there.
> Of course, not everyone shares this view, and I'm interested in hearing
> everyone's (civil!) thoughts on this matter.
Take a step backwards and ask where these things come from and more
importantly, *what they mean*. `To hack' is either slang/jargon for `expend
large amounts of concentrated effort on', while `to crack' comes definitely
from cracking into things.
Of this I'm 300% certain, and refuse utterly to fall into the common
ignorance-driven error.
~Tim
--
Gabrielle and Madelene were just dolls. |pig...@glutinous.custard.org
|http://piglet.is.dreaming.org
John O'Flaherty
> $kr1pt...@salmahayeksknockers.edu writes:
>
> > Many claim that the term 'hacker' is often inappropriately substituted
> > for the term 'cracker'.
>
> Missing single quote reinserted.
>
> > I believe that language evolves, and it is not only anachronistic,but
> > pedantic, to adhere to an original usage of a word, when the popular
> > usage has moved away from the original one.
>
> And of course, `pedantic' is the correct & right way to go, so no problem
> there.
>
> > Of course, not everyone shares this view, and I'm interested in hearing
> > everyone's (civil!) thoughts on this matter.
>
> Take a step backwards and ask where these things come from and more
> importantly, *what they mean*. `To hack' is either slang/jargon for `expend
> large amounts of concentrated effort on', while `to crack' comes definitely
> from cracking into things.
> Of this I'm 300% certain, and refuse utterly to fall into the common
> ignorance-driven error.
Originally, in the years 1975 through 1980, 'hacker' meant someone who built their
own computer. I think it referred to the possibly unesthetic results.
john
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Originally, in the years 1975 through 1980, 'hacker' meant someone
> who built their own computer.
Which, of course, explains the word's appearance in the 1972 MIT tech
report _HAKMEM_, clearly referring to mainframe hackers.
I don't recall "hackers" being restricted to people who built their
own computers (although they often were hackers in the more general
sense). The specific term for such people, IIRC, was "homebrewers".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |This case--and I must be careful
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |not to fall into Spooner's trap
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |here--concerns a group of warring
|bankers.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Wolfgang Denk
>Originally, in the years 1975 through 1980, 'hacker' meant someone who built their
>own computer. I think it referred to the possibly unesthetic results.
Ummm... you think.
I quote the Hacker's Dictionary:
hacker n.
[originally, someone who makes furniture with an axe] 1. A person who
enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to
stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to
learn only the minimum necessary. 2. One who programs
enthusiastically (even obsessively) or who enjoys programming rather
than just theorizing about programming. 3. A person capable of
appreciating hack value. 4. A person who is good at programming
quickly. 5. An expert at a particular program, or one who frequently
does work using it or on it; as in `a Unix hacker'. (Definitions 1
through 5 are correlated, and people who fit them congregate.) 6. An
expert or enthusiast of any kind. One might be an astronomy hacker,
for example. 7. One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of
creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations. 8. [deprecated] A
malicious meddler who tries to discover sensitive information by
poking around. Hence `password hacker', `network hacker'. The correct
term for this sense is cracker.
The term `hacker' also tends to connote membership in the global
community defined by the net (see the network and Internet address).
For discussion of some of the basics of this culture, see the How To
Become A Hacker FAQ. It also implies that the person described is
seen to subscribe to some version of the hacker ethic (see hacker
ethic).
It is better to be described as a hacker by others than to describe
oneself that way. Hackers consider themselves something of an elite
(a meritocracy based on ability), though one to which new members are
gladly welcome. There is thus a certain ego satisfaction to be had in
identifying yourself as a hacker (but if you claim to be one and are
not, you'll quickly be labeled bogus). See also wannabee.
This term seems to have been first adopted as a badge in the 1960s by
the hacker culture surrounding TMRC and the MIT AI Lab. We have a
report that it was used in a sense close to this entry's by teenage
radio hams and electronics tinkerers in the mid-1950s.
Wolfgang Denk
--
Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87 Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88 Email: w...@denx.de
I wish Captain Vimes were here. He wouldn't have known what to do
either, but he's got a much better vocabulary to be baffled in.
- Terry Pratchett, _Guards! Guards!_
Arcadian Rises
>Many claim that the term 'hacker' is often inappropriately substituted for
>the term 'cracker.
>
>I believe that language evolves, and it is not only anachronistic,but
>pedantic, to adhere to an original usage of a word, when the popular
>usage has moved away from the original one.
I believe that in general, there is already a consensus regarding the above
truism on popular usage that eventually establishes the norm. But only in
general.
In practice, each and every 'inappropriate usage' has to fight its way into
respectable language. Most of the wrong, illiterate, agramatical language win
the war against pedantic purists.
>Of course, not everyone shares this view, and I'm interested in hearing
>everyone's (civil!) thoughts on this matter.
For your sake, let's hope (or may I say "hopefully"?) that "hackers" will be
the winners. I'm not particularly fond of them, but I just wanted to express my
>(civil!) thoughts on this matter".
None
$kr1pt...@salmahayeksknockers.edu wrote:
> Many claim that the term 'hacker' is often inappropriately substituted for
> the term 'cracker.
>
> I believe that language evolves, and it is not only anachronistic,but
> pedantic, to adhere to an original usage of a word, when the popular
> usage has moved away from the original one.
>
> Of course, not everyone shares this view, and I'm interested in hearing
> everyone's (civil!) thoughts on this matter.
>
>
Most everyone in this new groups is a hacker....
The ones who are breaking into computers (not their own :) ) are crackers...
monic...@my-deja.com
$kr1pt...@salmahayeksknockers.edu wrote:
> Many claim that the term 'hacker' is often inappropriately
substituted for
> the term 'cracker.
>
> I believe that language evolves, and it is not only anachronistic,but
> pedantic, to adhere to an original usage of a word, when the popular
> usage has moved away from the original one.
>
> Of course, not everyone shares this view, and I'm interested in
hearing
> everyone's (civil!) thoughts on this matter.
>
> --
I suspect you are correct that many people refer to "crackers" (those
who illegally break into computers) as "hackers" (a term I prefer to
think of as one who spends a lot of time working with computers engaged
in many legitimate, albeit possibly pointless activities).
As a professional computer programmer and basically ethical person, it
irritates me when people take the next step of assuming all hackers
must be capable of cracking. Back in the olden days when software was
copy protected one of the vice presidents of the company I worked for,
gave me a copy protected disk saying "Make me a copy of this, I am sure
you can." Well I couldn't and even if I could I wouldn't have wanted to.
This seems analogous to saying all locksmiths are capable and willing
to engage in breaking and entry.
So, please everyone, stop referring to crackers as hackers, It is not
only a bad use of the language but it is insulting.
Now as a reasonable and civil person, I realize, almost no one cares
what I think, and my little plea will go unheard or at least ignored.
-Monica Blue
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Dominate Tricks
> Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 02:00:19 GMT
>
>> Many claim that the term 'hacker' is often inappropriately substituted for
>> the term 'cracker.
Hacker is getting into Microsoft's mainframe computers.
Cracker is getting the codes of their programs and using them to
your advantage.
Dominate Tricks
John Varela
> Many claim that the term 'hacker' is often inappropriately substituted for
> the term 'cracker.
>
> I believe that language evolves, and it is not only anachronistic,but
> pedantic, to adhere to an original usage of a word, when the popular
> usage has moved away from the original one.
>
> Of course, not everyone shares this view, and I'm interested in hearing
> everyone's (civil!) thoughts on this matter.
Take this to alt.folklore.computers, where the origin of "hacker" is a current
thread. My theory is it's related to "hack" as in
http://fishwrap.mit.edu/Hacks/Gallery.html
The term hack was not in use at MIT in the 1950s.
--
John Varela
McLean, VA USA
Michael Erskine
>
> Many claim that the term 'hacker' is often inappropriately substituted for
> the term 'cracker.
IMHO that is a valid claim. OTHO, the word OTHO isn't even a word, let
alone
a "madman with an ax" or a "crunchie cookie". Who would know whether a
criminal
should be called a "crunchie cookie" (or perhaps just whitey, gray, or
da man)
or called a "madman with an ax"? As I (being a madman with an ax) would
have no right to dictate my preferences upon those around me, I ask you
to
take the following in the spirit in which the above is written.
-m-
Rich Lafferty
monic...@my-deja.com <monic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> As a professional computer programmer and basically ethical person, it
> irritates me when people take the next step of assuming all hackers
> must be capable of cracking.
> This seems analogous to saying all locksmiths are capable and willing
> to engage in breaking and entry.
Your parallelism appears faulty -- or, perhaps, your analogy. Had you
written
This seems analogous to saying that all locksmiths are capable of
breaking and entering.
the parallelism would be okay, but I hope you can see where the
analogy leaves something to be desired, because all (competent)
locksmiths are capable of exactly that. Since you didn't raise the
issue of intent for hackers, you can't raise it for locksmiths -- and
then the analogy falls apart, since, as you observed, computer
professionals have varying skills in the area of intrusion, while
locksmiths would, I hope, be consistently expert. Or, at least, the
one that comes to let me into the house which I've locked myself out
of best be so.
Of course, "locksmith" is a trade with a well-defined set of skills,
and "hacker" is not.
> So, please everyone, stop referring to crackers as hackers, It is not
> only a bad use of the language but it is insulting.
This sentence will appear absurd to alt.usage.english, to which this
message is crossposted. If all of those people are using the word to
mean something, and a minority are going "No! No! It's something else,
well, sort of", a large number of people will say that the former get
to say what it means. That's how English developed, for the most
part.
Of course, it's much easier to observe that it's common in English for
words to have multiple meanings. The word "hacker" has multiple
meanings. So does the word "cracker". You may have noted that MWCD13
includes both your preferred definition of "hacker" and the one you
dislike. I'll note that the definition of "cracker" that you prefer
does not appear at all, which seems to me to accurately reflect what
the nontechnical public thinks in the matter.
> Now as a reasonable and civil person, I realize, almost no one cares
> what I think, and my little plea will go unheard or at least ignored.
That strikes me as an unreasonable if uncivil thing to say, or
possibly just a touch passive-aggressive. Language does not develop
develop by request, campaign or demand (or even logic).
In any case, I think you'd be well-advised to note the lances already
protruding from this particular windmill.
-Rich
--
Rich Lafferty ----------------------------------------
Nocturnal Aviation Division, IITS Computing Services
Concordia University, Montreal, QC
ri...@bofh.concordia.ca -------------------------------
Richard Fontana
> In alt.usage.english,
> monic...@my-deja.com <monic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > As a professional computer programmer and basically ethical person, it
> > irritates me when people take the next step of assuming all hackers
> > must be capable of cracking.
> [...]
> > So, please everyone, stop referring to crackers as hackers, It is not
> > only a bad use of the language but it is insulting.
>
> This sentence will appear absurd to alt.usage.english, to which this
> message is crossposted. If all of those people are using the word to
> mean something, and a minority are going "No! No! It's something else,
> well, sort of", a large number of people will say that the former get
> to say what it means. That's how English developed, for the most
> part.
Though of course any group can try to convince the larger community of
speakers to change its terminology; once in a while that sort of thing is
effective, but a requirement that I believe is missing here is a sense of
great social injustice brought about by the majority (?) or plebeian
usage.
> Of course, it's much easier to observe that it's common in English for
> words to have multiple meanings. The word "hacker" has multiple
> meanings. So does the word "cracker". You may have noted that MWCD13
> includes both your preferred definition of "hacker" and the one you
> dislike. I'll note that the definition of "cracker" that you prefer
> does not appear at all, which seems to me to accurately reflect what
> the nontechnical public thinks in the matter.
And a large portion of the technical public too, from what I've observed.
I'd like to know if "cracker" was was coined specifically by disgruntled
"true hackers" late in the day because they were upset when the word
"hacker" was being newly applied to these other bad (and less
accomplished) people. The discussions of this cracker vs. hacker
terminology issue by "true hackers" always seem to have this quality. It
seems too much of a coincidence to me that "cracker", the suggested
replacement word, conveniently rhymes with "hacker" and differs from it
only by the initial consonant.
Yes, I know one "cracks" codes and safes, but apart from such usages was
there any tendency to use "cracker" to mean "person who breaches things in
a bad way" in the distant past? There are of course lots of other
meanings of "cracker", some good and some bad. To me, "hack" seems to
have as one of its basic meanings the idea of "cutting into something,
thereby causing harm", obviously not very close at all to the "hack" that
is present in the "true" hacker's hack. There are other negative
meanings of "hack", and I get the sense that the term "hacker" (in the
"true" sense) arose originally in a sort of self-deprecating way.
Is there a contention that "crackers" deliberately *stole* the term
"hacker", or is it thought that the later cracker's "hacker" arose
independently of the earlier "true hacker"'s hacker?
I'm generally somewhat sympathetic to the true hacker's dismay over the
terminology. As an analogy, I don't like it when Kenny G is called a
"jazz musician".
John O'Flaherty
> John O'Flaherty <ofla...@toast.net> writes:
>
> >Originally, in the years 1975 through 1980, 'hacker' meant someone who built their
> >own computer. I think it referred to the possibly unesthetic results.
>
> Ummm... you think.
>
> I quote the Hacker's Dictionary:
>
> hacker n.
I see that my picture of the word was quite deficient. I first encountered it in about
1976 in Byte magazine. Obviously it had existed before. I'm guessing that the business
about building furniture with an axe is a joke.
john
Matt Curtin
kr1pt> I believe that language evolves, and it is not only
kr1pt> anachronistic,but pedantic, to adhere to an original usage of
kr1pt> a word, when the popular usage has moved away from the
kr1pt> original one.
This is only correct if there is no difference beteween the two. For
example, when translating poetry, one might reasonably use a "thou" if
there is a particular reason that "you" won't carry the same meaning.
(An example of this, discussed in great detail in Douglas
R. Hofstadter's _Le Ton beau de Marot_, would be Marot's poem "A une
Damoyselle malade", there's actually a switch from formal "vous" to
informal/personal "tu". A translation to English that uses "you"
throughout would therefore lose something in the translation. This
problem is easily solved by employing "thou" where appropriate.
Is "thou" archaic? Sure, generally, but there are times when it still
is the best available option.
As for this hacker vs. cracker business, there is still a great deal
of difference between the two. Many have tried to define "hack", and
many of the definitions are different, even though they generally have
some common themes. The Jargon File discusses this and concludes that
"hack" really doesn't have many different meanings, but a single
meaning that's best understood in some Zen-like sense. If you're
looking for a succinct definition that covers these senses, consider
this:
hack (n), A circumvention of limitations, an accomplishment not
previously thought possible.
There's something subtle in this definition: it _can_ include things
which would be known as a "crack".
Hacking is about understanding the fundamental nature of things, using
them to their limits, sometimes even accomplishing "the impossible".
Historically, that has been applied to a fairly rare breed of
programmer, one who can make The Machine do more with less. This
doesn't necessarily mean that all hacks are pieces of code or neat
tricks with hardware. Examples of all usages (ranging from the "Story
of Mel" to JonL's "I've been hacked!") are well documented in the
Jargon File and its successor, the _New Hacker's Dictionary_. Some of
these (notably the example of Robin Hood and Friar Tuck) would be
hacks that did involve circumventing system security.
In all of these cases, hacking is about creating, even if it's
creating something that defeats something else.
Cracking, simply stated, is exploiting a vulnerability without
authorization to do so. The vast majority -- I'd say "all" if I were
too naive to know that someone will find a single contrary example --
of cracking involves no creation. It's using something that has been
created, almost always against someone else. The vast majority of
cracks are by "script kiddies", folks who can't figure out how to
exploit the vulnerability, but run programs (which could be called
"hacks") written by other people.
There is, therefore, quite a serious difference between hacking and
cracking; using the terms interchangeably is incorrect and
demonstrates a failure to understand the fundamental nature of The
Hack.
--
Matt Curtin, Founder Interhack Corporation http://www.interhack.net/
"Building the Internet, Securely." research | development | consulting
Tim Haynes
[Followups ignored, especially as you didn't disclaim them, but also 'cos
this is still on-topic for cols]
> Is "thou" archaic? Sure, generally, but there are times when it still
> is the best available option.
Good, glad somebody said that :8)
[snip, "hack"]
> best understood in some Zen-like sense. If you're looking for a succinct
> definition that covers these senses, consider this:
>
> hack (n), A circumvention of limitations, an accomplishment not
> previously thought possible.
>
> There's something subtle in this definition: it _can_ include things
> which would be known as a "crack".
This is true. Most of the problems we complain about, though, are verb
usage.
> Hacking is about understanding the fundamental nature of things, using
> them to their limits, sometimes even accomplishing "the impossible".
> Historically, that has been applied to a fairly rare breed of programmer,
> one who can make The Machine do more with less. This doesn't necessarily
> mean that all hacks are pieces of code or neat tricks with hardware.
> Examples of all usages (ranging from the "Story of Mel" to JonL's "I've
> been hacked!") are well documented in the Jargon File and its successor,
> the _New Hacker's Dictionary_. Some of these (notably the example of
> Robin Hood and Friar Tuck) would be hacks that did involve circumventing
> system security.
I read those two examples and the first feeling that comes to mind is a
sort of warm, fuzzy `olden days' thing where use of the term was somewhat
unreal or naiive.
> In all of these cases, hacking is about creating, even if it's creating
> something that defeats something else.
>
> Cracking, simply stated, is exploiting a vulnerability without
> authorization to do so. The vast majority -- I'd say "all" if I were too
> naive to know that someone will find a single contrary example -- of
> cracking involves no creation.
Cracking that involves writing a tool to do something for you is definitely
creative. Other forms of creativity (syn `creation'?) include imaginative
use of dumpsters' contents, too.
> It's using something that has been created, almost always against someone
> else. The vast majority of cracks are by "script kiddies", folks who
> can't figure out how to exploit the vulnerability, but run programs
> (which could be called "hacks") written by other people.
I'd suggest that rootkits are a sick person's `hack', and everybody else's
`cracks', myself.
There is this connotation of good/bad: `creative' is used as `good' above,
for example, while `breach of security' comes under `bad'.
> There is, therefore, quite a serious difference between hacking and
> cracking; using the terms interchangeably is incorrect and demonstrates a
> failure to understand the fundamental nature of The Hack.
Definitely. And of the nature of `to hack'.
~Tim
--
Clouds cross the black moonlight, |pig...@glutinous.custard.org
Rushing on down to the sound |http://piglet.is.dreaming.org
of a turning world |
mike_l...@my-deja.com
Michael Erskine <osi...@urbanna.net> wrote:
> "$kr1pt_k177y"@salmahayeksknockers.edu wrote:
> >
> > Many claim that the term 'hacker' is often inappropriately
substituted for
> > the term 'cracker.
>
> IMHO that is a valid claim. OTHO, the word OTHO isn't even a word,
Yes it is: a Roman Emperor.
Hwyl, Mike.
Jack Gavin
news:934v4o$q8e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3A556960...@urbanna.net>,
> Michael Erskine <osi...@urbanna.net> wrote:
> > "$kr1pt_k177y"@salmahayeksknockers.edu wrote:
> > >
> > > Many claim that the term 'hacker' is often inappropriately
> substituted for
> > > the term 'cracker.
> >
> > IMHO that is a valid claim. OTHO, the word OTHO isn't even a word,
>
> Yes it is: a Roman Emperor.
Oh yeah, Otho the Indecisive.
--
Jack Gavin
Jeandré
>"true hackers" late in the day because they were upset when the word
>"hacker" was being newly applied to these other bad (and less
>accomplished) people.
cracker n.
One who breaks security on a system. Coined ca. 1985 by hackers in
defense against journalistic misuse of hacker (q.v., sense 8). An
earlier attempt to establish `worm' in this sense around 1981-82 on
Usenet was largely a failure...
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/cracker.html
/`\ Jeandré
\ / jea...@techie.com
X
/ \ Text ribbon campaign for HTML free e-mail and Usenet posts
Jeandré
...if, for instance, he needs to get some info to make a Linux app
work with a Windows "standard" - not just to say he did it.
From http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/cracker.html :
While it is expected that any real hacker will have done some playful
cracking and knows many of the basic techniques, anyone past larval
stage is expected to have outgrown the desire to do so except for
immediate, benign, practical reasons (for example, if it's necessary
to get around some security in order to get some work done).
Also see the RMS's letter at
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/Appendix-C.html
Michael Erskine
> > So, please everyone, stop referring to crackers as hackers, It is not
> > only a bad use of the language but it is insulting.
>
> This sentence will appear absurd to alt.usage.english, to which this
> message is crossposted. If all of those people are using the word to
> mean something, and a minority are going "No! No! It's something else,
> well, sort of", a large number of people will say that the former get
> to say what it means. That's how English developed, for the most
> part.
Unfortunate circumstance, that... It makes natural language processing
into such an intractable problem. Damn, and double damn, what were you
"English" majors thinking when you designed the language, huh?
Give me a nice, structured language with a spoken grammar (in other
words a language which actually embeds grammatical particles in the
spoken language) vice an unstructured, hodgepodge of bits and pieces
from a dozen languages, tossed together with a word order based
grammer any day. It is so much easier for a machine to figure out
the function of each clause in a sentence, and there is so much less
room for subjective interpretation of meaning in such a language.
On the one hand you get a YKWIM language on the other hand you get
an ISWIM language...
-s trolls -j REDIRECT Now Korean for example is vastly superior to
English in it's logic, design, and purity. Thank you very much.
RST, hee hee hee.
>
> > Now as a reasonable and civil person, I realize, almost no one cares
> > what I think, and my little plea will go unheard or at least ignored.
>
> That strikes me as an unreasonable if uncivil thing to say, or
> possibly just a touch passive-aggressive. Language does not develop
> develop by request, campaign or demand (or even logic).
Is this alt.psychology, now? If it is, *that* strikes me as someone
being just a bit agressive and condescending in order to provoke a
response. As I am a past master of the technique, I recommend he, and
we all, drop the issue.
>
> In any case, I think you'd be well-advised to note the lances already
> protruding from this particular windmill.
Good point, Rich, you and the rest of the the "English" majors will have
your way. There is no logic in arguing a point which has been overtaken
by misuse of the language, thru ignorance. In particular, given that the
techno-wennies never had ownership of either of the words in question,
there is little reason to discuss how people feel about the vulgar (by
that I mean common) use of those words today. That is unless one is
working on a "psych" paper for his PSY101 course or just trolling.
BTW you have been sig-snarfed.
Let us all ask ourselves, what was the point of posting this trollish
request to comp.os.linux.security, from someone using a "SK"ish mail
nom-de-plume?
-m-
--
They are, after all, only words.
It is dark, beware of the Grue.
Luke Vogel
> Give me a nice, structured language with a spoken grammar (in other
> words a language which actually embeds grammatical particles in the
> spoken language) vice an unstructured, hodgepodge of bits and pieces
> from a dozen languages, tossed together with a word order based
> grammer any day. It is so much easier for a machine to figure out
> the function of each clause in a sentence, and there is so much less
> room for subjective interpretation of meaning in such a language.
> On the one hand you get a YKWIM language on the other hand you get
> an ISWIM language...
I personally like Yoda-speak.
> -s trolls -j REDIRECT Now Korean for example is vastly superior to
> English in it's logic, design, and purity. Thank you very much.
This has definite possibilities ...
> RST, hee hee hee.
RST, REJECT or DENY?
> BTW you have been sig-snarfed.
... I must be getting old ... sig-snarfed??
> They are, after all, only words.
> It is dark, beware of the Grue.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This reeks of a similar flame war that developed last year, resulting in
/dev/null's posting to an FBI ng and a sudden departure from the scene.
--
Regards
Luke
PLEASE NOTE: Spamgard (tm) installed.
----
"Normal people ... believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Engineers believe that if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough
features ... yet." -- Scott Adams
----
http://www.bell-bird.com.au
mailto:lu...@bell-bird.com.au
----
Peter Moylan
> hack (n), A circumvention of limitations, an accomplishment not
> previously thought possible.
>
>There's something subtle in this definition: it _can_ include things
>which would be known as a "crack".
>
>Hacking is about understanding the fundamental nature of things, using
>them to their limits, sometimes even accomplishing "the impossible".
>Historically, that has been applied to a fairly rare breed of
>programmer, one who can make The Machine do more with less.
I like to think that I'm that sort of person, but I would feel
greatly insulted if anyone called me a hacker. That's because my
understanding of the word comes from a period before the Jargon File
became influential.
In the older meaning, a hack was a sloppy job, and a hacker was
someone who did things unprofessionally. To see the sort of
work that hackers do, look at the earlier versions of Windows.
(And maybe the later versions too. It's a few years since I
checked.) Sure, they worked, but you were never sure when they
were going to collapse in an inexplicable way. They were designed
to do the job any way they could, as distinct from being
designed to work reliably and predictably.
The skilled programmers used to look down on the hackers. Calling
someone a hacker was offensive. As an educator, I worked very hard
to try to overcome the hacker way of thinking -- a way of thinking
developed by students who had taught themselves Basic while at
high school -- and to get my students to develop a more professional
approach. I think I succeeded with the majority.
The top people in the field, people like Dijkstra and Wirth,
devoted their lives to combatting the hacker mentality. They
tried to teach people to *design* rather than throw together
kludges. They didn't entirely succeed -- we still have
programming languages like Java and C++ -- but at least they
managed to get people thinking about the difference between a
professional approach and a hacker's approach.
Then came the Jargon File. It was written by the sort of people
who called themselves hackers, and naturally they wanted the
term to look good. That Jargon File has had an enormous influence,
presumably because it's easily accessible, and it has succeeded
in almost driving out the old meaning of 'hacker'.
It's entirely possible that there are fewer than a million of
us left who remember the older meaning, and in fifty years we'll
all be dead. Nevertheless, I'm not willing to abandon the
traditional meaning of 'hacker' just because some Johnny-come-lately
has produced a document saying that it means the opposite.
--
Peter Moylan pe...@ee.newcastle.edu.au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au
Mags
hacker = a person who can get into a system despite the security within it
cracker = a person who can alter software in such a way as to eliminate
the need within it to provide a password
It may not be the official standpoint of dictionaries, but it is the
common usage among the computer dorks of the world. When you hack, you
commit breaking and entering. When you crack, you have laundered your
stolen money.
Mags
John Varela
> Despite the postings:
>
> hacker = a person who can get into a system despite the security within it
> cracker = a person who can alter software in such a way as to eliminate
> the need within it to provide a password
>
> It may not be the official standpoint of dictionaries, but it is the
> common usage among the computer dorks of the world. When you hack, you
> commit breaking and entering. When you crack, you have laundered your
> stolen money.
Did you just make that up? I dare you to go to alt.folklore.computers and
make that assertion. Here's what the Jargon file has to say:
cracker n. One who breaks security on a system. Coined ca. 1985 by hackers in
defense against journalistic misuse of {hacker} (q.v., sense 8). An earlier
attempt to establish `worm' in this sense around 1981--82 on USENET was
largely a failure.
Use of both these neologisms reflects a strong revulsion against the
theft and vandalism perpetrated by cracking rings. While it is expected that
any real hacker will have done some playful cracking and knows many of the
basic techniques, anyone past {larval stage} is expected to have outgrown the
desire to do so except for immediate practical reasons (for example, if it's
necessary to get around some security in order to get some work done).
Thus, there is far less overlap between hackerdom and crackerdom than the
{mundane} reader misled by sensationalistic journalism might expect. Crackers
tend to gather in small, tight-knit, very secretive groups that have little
overlap with the huge, open poly-culture this lexicon describes; though
crackers often like to describe *themselves* as hackers, most true hackers
consider them a separate and lower form of life.
Ethical considerations aside, hackers figure that anyone who can't
imagine a more interesting way to play with their computers than breaking into
someone else's has to be pretty {losing}. Some other reasons crackers are
looked down on are discussed in the entries on {cracking} and {phreaking}. See
also {samurai}, {dark-side hacker}, and {hacker ethic, the}.
cracking n. The act of breaking into a computer system; what a {cracker} does.
Contrary to widespread myth, this does not usually involve some mysterious
leap of hackerly brilliance, but rather persistence and the dogged repetition
of a handful of fairly well-known tricks that exploit common weaknesses in the
security of target systems. Accordingly, most crackers are only mediocre
hackers.
Richard Crowley
"cracker" was created by "hackers" to differentiate the malicious subspecies
from the benign. The definitions by "Mags" appear to be incorrect.
RC in OR
"John Varela" <jav...@earthlink.net> wrote ...
R Fontana
I think that the etymologically separate "hackney" sense of "hack" has
probably influenced some of the "chop up"-derived uses of "hack". To me
one primary meaning of "hack" is something similar to what you describe,
but not at all restricted to programmers: a hack is someone who does a
job, quickly perhaps but not competently or beautifully. Indeed it's
really not clear to me whether this is coming primarily from hackney hack
or chop up hack. The "cracker" sense
of hacker, so disapproved by the Jargon File, is more clearly a product of
"hack" = chop, cut into.
In general, I think the Jargon File's usage of "hacker" has an ironical,
self-deprecating quality that is probably just taken as a given by those
who (at least originally) used the term, but I'm not sure how clear this
is to someone such as (a) a non-native speaker unfamiliar with all
the general English usages of "hack", many of which suggest
"clumsiness", "botched up", "extemporary", "lack of skill", etc., (b)
young people still struggling to gain linguistic competence, and (c)
people with no sense of humor but with an intense desire to gain
membership in some sort of exclusive elite group, and half of the people
(wannabes, I guess) who religiously quote the Jargon File seem to fall
into that category. As an example of this, we had someone in another
posting, probably a denizen of that security newsgroup, mention that
"originally someone who makes furniture with an axe" etymology without
realizing that this was meant as a joke.
Mags
"Hacking is breaking into systems and getting passwords, ...
And cracking is registering softwares without a serial number and without
paying."
Mags
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
> The top people in the field, people like Dijkstra and Wirth,
> devoted their lives to combatting the hacker mentality. They
> tried to teach people to *design* rather than throw together
> kludges. They didn't entirely succeed -- we still have
> programming languages like Java and C++ -- but at least they
> managed to get people thinking about the difference between a
> professional approach and a hacker's approach.
As one who wore the mantle of hacker proudly for a decade, I can only
say that our job was to make work what the professionals couldn't. Books
like mine in the early 1980s were published to show people how to fix
the products of professionals whose vision and practices were limited by
their training and even moreso by their dogma (check out the Opera
newsgroups for professionals gone amok).
The good part is that hackers continue to work, albeit under other names
now that 'hacker' has been tarnished and history rewritten as you have
just attempted. Hackers' work is found as freeware in thousands of
websites, continuing to pick up after the professionals.
Dennis
--
Dennis Báthory-Kitsz
MaltedMedia Productions: http://maltedmedia.com/
Kalvos & Damian's New Music Bazaar: http://kalvos.org/
The Transitive Empire: http://maltedmedia.com/empire/
OrbitAccess Accessibility: http://orbitaccess.com/
Downloadable Scores: http://maltedmedia.com/scores/
Lullaby for Bill Gates: http://www.mp3.com/bathory/
ICQ: 10526261 / AIM: DBathory
Michael Erskine
> cracker n.
> One who breaks security on a system. Coined ca. 1985 by hackers in
> defense against journalistic misuse of hacker (q.v., sense 8). An
> earlier attempt to establish `worm' in this sense around 1981-82 on
> Usenet was largely a failure...
I definatly like "worm" better but it is taken now...
-m-
--
If children don't know why their grandparents did what they
did, how shall those children know what is worth preserving and what
should change?
Michael Erskine
>
> I personally like Yoda-speak.
:)
> > BTW you have been sig-snarfed.
>
> ... I must be getting old ... sig-snarfed??
Sig-snarfed - to have one's words captured to be used as an
entry in another's sig file. Conied by Tim Haynes, some
while back, on the occasion of having been "sig snarfed".
>
> > They are, after all, only words.
> > It is dark, beware of the Grue.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> This reeks of a similar flame war that developed last year, resulting in
> /dev/null's posting to an FBI ng and a sudden departure from the scene.
Momentary lose of perspective due to my being a natural born "Celtic"
warrior. Musta lost my mind. I think the Grue ate that guy.
-m-
--
There is no limit to what one can accomplish, if they do not concern
themselves with who gets the credit. Unknown, paraphrased
Michael Erskine
>
> In article <3A556960...@urbanna.net>,
> Michael Erskine <osi...@urbanna.net> wrote:
> > "$kr1pt_k177y"@salmahayeksknockers.edu wrote:
> > >
> > > Many claim that the term 'hacker' is often inappropriately
> substituted for
> > > the term 'cracker.
> >
> > IMHO that is a valid claim. OTHO, the word OTHO isn't even a word,
>
> Yes it is: a Roman Emperor.
Hm... Ok. OTHO is a name, hence a word and clearly I was refering to a Roman
Emperor. On the other hand, find it in a spell checker. ;-)
Tim Haynes
> > ... I must be getting old ... sig-snarfed??
>
> Sig-snarfed - to have one's words captured to be used as an entry in
> another's sig file. Conied by Tim Haynes, some while back, on the
> occasion of having been "sig snarfed".
s/Conied/snarfed/ ;8)
~Tim
--
Can you tell me how to get, |pig...@glutinous.custard.org
How to get to Sesame Street? |http://piglet.is.dreaming.org
John Varela
wrote:
> Peter Moylan wrote:
> > The top people in the field, people like Dijkstra and Wirth,
> > devoted their lives to combatting the hacker mentality. They
> > tried to teach people to *design* rather than throw together
> > kludges. They didn't entirely succeed -- we still have
> > programming languages like Java and C++ -- but at least they
> > managed to get people thinking about the difference between a
> > professional approach and a hacker's approach.
>
> As one who wore the mantle of hacker proudly for a decade, I can only
> say that our job was to make work what the professionals couldn't. Books
> like mine in the early 1980s were published to show people how to fix
> the products of professionals whose vision and practices were limited by
> their training and even moreso by their dogma (check out the Opera
> newsgroups for professionals gone amok).
>
> The good part is that hackers continue to work, albeit under other names
> now that 'hacker' has been tarnished and history rewritten as you have
> just attempted. Hackers' work is found as freeware in thousands of
> websites, continuing to pick up after the professionals.
I never ran across the term in the early days--which for me were the late 50s
and early 60s--but my impression is that the term arose as a title of honor
among college and graduate students at cutting-edge places like Project MAC.
Since Moylan claims the term was hijacked and sanitized by hackers who wrote
the Jargon File, I have posted a message, "Hacker vs. Cracker", on
alt.folklore.computers, a place well populated with old timers, with this
content:
- Surely this has come up here before but it's not in the FAQ nor can I find
- anything on what's left of Deja News.
- The Jargon File claims a difference between hacker and cracker. But to be
- called a hack, as in "hack writer", is not a compliment. How did the term
- hacker come into being and get adapted to programming, and was it originally
- a term of contempt? When did it become honorable, if ever? Do members of
- this group believe there is a real difference between a hacker and a
- cracker? Would you refer to yourself as a hacker?
I'll report back on the results.
R J Valentine
...
] I think that the etymologically separate "hackney" sense of "hack" has
] probably influenced some of the "chop up"-derived uses of "hack". To me
] one primary meaning of "hack" is something similar to what you describe,
] but not at all restricted to programmers: a hack is someone who does a
] job, quickly perhaps but not competently or beautifully. Indeed it's
] really not clear to me whether this is coming primarily from hackney hack
] or chop up hack.
Back in the fifties, "to hack around" was to fool around or to fiddle
around or to do something for amusement. Back in the seventies when
readers of _Byte_ Magazine were casting about for a label to correspond to
the word "ham" for the amateur radio service, the word "hacker" (reported
as previously existing in some circles) was popularized, and _Byte_ claims
credit on its website for popularizing it. At that point there was
nothing particularly derogatory or self-deprecatory about it. But none of
the people I knew who got paid the big bucks for programming used it.
There were hack programmers even then, but that was different from
hackers.
I never used "ham" back when I dealt with 50,000-watt radio transmitters,
either.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@clark.net?subject=%3Cnews:alt.usage.english%3E%20>
$kr1pt...@salmahayeksknockers.edu
> Hm... Ok. OTHO is a name, hence a word and clearly I was refering to a Roman
> Emperor. On the other hand, find it in a spell checker. ;-)
Mine seems to find it just fine. I suggest you update your Latin/ancient
dictionary file.
--
..............................................................................
"The motive for Israel's attacks against civilian populations.. was dual: to
disperse the Palestinian refugees, and to embitter relations between them
and the local population in the areas to which they had been driven."
-Noam Chomsky, The Fateful Triangle, p. 182
..............................................................................
www.geocities.com/pentagon/bunker/1022 swan_...@my-dejanews.com
Michael Erskine
"$kr1pt_k177y"@salmahayeksknockers.edu wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.security Michael Erskine <osi...@vast.urbanna.net> wrote:
>
> > Hm... Ok. OTHO is a name, hence a word and clearly I was refering to a Roman
> > Emperor. On the other hand, find it in a spell checker. ;-)
>
> Mine seems to find it just fine. I suggest you update your Latin/ancient
> dictionary file.
I have no need. I am not cracking password files.
Rodrigo Nuno Bragança da Cunha
>
> Many claim that the term 'hacker' is often inappropriately substituted for
> the term 'cracker.
>
> pedantic, to adhere to an original usage of a word, when the popular
> usage has moved away from the original one.
>
> Of course, not everyone shares this view, and I'm interested in hearing
> everyone's (civil!) thoughts on this matter.
Thats like "catholic".
Originaly meaning "universal" and/or "universally accepted" tha word is now
barely used with this meaning, but it's still on the dictionary, and I've heard
it used wityh this meaning by some more cultivated persons.
Rodrigo Nuno Bragança da Cunha
> As a professional computer programmer and basically ethical person, it
> irritates me when people take the next step of assuming all hackers
> must be capable of cracking. Back in the olden days when software was
> copy protected one of the vice presidents of the company I worked for,
> gave me a copy protected disk saying "Make me a copy of this, I am sure
> you can." Well I couldn't and even if I could I wouldn't have wanted to.
Given a program similar to gdb or something like that and sufficient time you
would be able to do so, unless you are incompetent...