Slashdot Mirror

• luser
• LART
• clue-stick or clue-by-four

win

Is that now synonymous with programmers?

It always was. It's the other meaning that's wrong.

Sounds like you are a hacker - in the old sense of the word we gave up defending on /. :)
Check out the portrait of J Random hacker:
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/appendixb.html
The entry on geek makes an interesting observation on the distinction between hacker and geek:
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/G/geek.html

This fits in with the distinction the original story seems to be about - separating watered-down pop geek culture from geek culture.

Sounds like you are a hacker - in the old sense of the word we gave up defending on /. :)
Check out the portrait of J Random hacker:
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/appendixb.html
The entry on geek makes an interesting observation on the distinction between hacker and geek:
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/G/geek.html

This fits in with the distinction the original story seems to be about - separating watered-down pop geek culture from geek culture.

Er no.

hacker: A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and stretching their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary.

Jargon File

cracker: One who breaks security on a system.

JargonFile

Er no.

hacker: A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and stretching their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary.

Jargon File

cracker: One who breaks security on a system.

JargonFile

I'm sorry about your dad, and I'm glad you're getting your zest for life back. And I totally agree that having interests away from computers is vital to living a happy, balanced life.

The "one new language a year" pretty much is just an arbitrary rule, but it's pretty common advice. It's turned up in _The Pragmatic Programmer_, Scott Hanselman practices it (http://www.hanselman.com/blog/ProgrammerIntentOrWhatYoureNotGettingAboutRubyAndWhyItsTheTits.aspx), http://norvig.com/21-days.html recommends learning 6 different languages that support different paradigms in 10 years. Eric S. Raymond points to the Norvig essay in the "Learn how to program" section of http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html. He also mentions that, after you've learned a few, you should be able to learn a new one in just a few days.

OTOH, there's probably a point of diminishing returns, where the only way you're really going to get any better is by stepping away from the computer and getting interested in other things: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/01/how-to-become-a-better-programmer-by-not-programming.html

Like I said, it's just a general observation, and it wasn't meant to be anything personal at all.

When using brackets or quote marks the punctuation at the end of a sentence goes inside the marks if it is part of the inner sentence, otherwise it goes on the outside.

There are weird typographical conventions here, and British and American usage differ. See Hacker Writing Style in the Jargon File.

Saying "one hundred ten" sounds like it should be written "100, 10". Use "and" to show the connection, i.e. "one hundred and ten".

Stuff and nonsense. Do you say "twenty and one"? Do you say "two thousand and two hundred and twenty and two"? The proper formal name of the number "110" is "one hundred ten".

"One hundred and ten" or "a hundred and ten" are vernacular forms, acceptable in everyday speech but giving a bad impression if used formally. Which engineer makes a better impression, the one who tells you "the length of this piece is one hundred ten centimeters" or the one who says "the length of this piece is a hundred and ten centimeters"?

Which is why Eric S. Raymond wrote his famous How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

Say what you will about Eric S. Raymond, reading his (free) book The Art of Unix Programming is the best way to understand the design philosophy behind any Unix system, not just Linux. And it has general applicability as well.

1997 called.

Yes, IHBT. IHL. IWHAND.

Keyboard ON the screen == bad: http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/G/gorilla-arm.html

Keyboard away from the screen and horizontal, no problem. But then, what's the point in virtualizing it?

The first of the Halloween documents was dated August 2008. http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween1.html

You're right, some wget and a pipeline probably wouldn't cover your crazy scheme.
I'd have a file full of entries to remove by default, and another file of entries to add. I'd cat the 'add' file into sed along with the 8 data source files. I would run through the 'remove' file with a 'while read' loop and sed out those entries (there's probably a faster way to do it, but that would work). Should take maybe 2 minutes on a slow machine from wget to finish.

Except I wouldn't do any of that because I'm not mental enough to have a 16MB hosts file. Unlike you. You're mental.

http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/unix-koans/ten-thousand.html

...that way the article could have included itself as number one. Another meandering, poorly written summary of the year.

If you're going to choose an arbitrary number to attach to an end of year list, keep it to ten and focus on the writing. Seriously, 57? I'm reminded of the Jargon File comment about 17 being the "least random number". This is just a blatant excuse to generate ads by breaking up an article; I'm surprised it isn't 57 pages long, in slide show form.

By hippie, don't you mean hacker? http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/appendixb.html

Small correction: His name is Eric Raymond, and he usually goes by Eric S. Raymond professionally.

The book can be found at isbn.nu or elsewhere, including from O'Reilly in case you're partial to them (since they don't show up in isbn.nu's list).

ESR's home page is a great resource unto itself.

First of all, your post erroneously assumes that the answer to the question: "When will Linux be ready for the desktop?" is not "It has been ready for years.". You also are overlooking all the lies told, the FUD sold, the standards committee tampering, and the Halloween Documents that prove that Microsoft indeed cheated, even though it still didn't win (though their customers have certainly lost.)

The question I want answered is "When will Windows be ready for the desktop?", because I guarantee you my Linux box blows the doors of of any Windows machine hands down, and does it all without being a Malware fest.

Whatever the age of the original poster and whatever posture is assumed during urination, it's not exactly a shining example of smart questioning, is it?

Read this:
Eric S. Raymond, "The Magic Cauldron"
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/magic-cauldron/

"It's why programming is a form of art. It's where you get to express your creative vision in a concrete fashion."

No actually, it's an engineering discipline, that's probably why you're getting it so very wrong. People want solid, well structured applications, not arty farty bullshit.

http://www.burlingtontelecom.net/~ashawley/gnu/emacs/ConText-Kelty.pdf Page 2 ... nice reference to "Donald Knuth's monumental work The Art of Computer Programming [Knuth, 1997])" ... I'll take Knuth's opinion over yours any day, and I'm not the only one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Computer_Programming

American Scientist has included this work among "100 or so Books that shaped a Century of Science", referring to the 20th century,[2] and within the computer science community it is regarded as the first and still the best comprehensive treatment of its subject. Covers of the third edition of Volume 1 quote Bill Gates as saying, "If you think you're a really good programmer . . . read (Knuth's) Art of Computer Programming . . . You should definitely send me a résumé if you can read the whole thing." [nb 2] The New York Times referred to it as "the profession's defining treatise".[3]

Others:

The Art of Unix Programming: http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/

Or this: http://onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/06/30/artofprog.html

Einstein:

After a certain level of technological skill is achieved, science and art tend to coalesce in aesthetic plasticity and form. The greater scientists are artists as well.

Quotes from RMS, Brookes, etc. Programming is art when done right. You obviously are incapable of seeing that by your own words - must be the brain-damage from too much Java, if you have to write stupidity like this:

just get the fuck out of the industry, there is no place in it for you. If you want to do art then fuck off to hipster land and go do it, the software development industry is not the place, we don't want your poorly architected, insecure, poorly tested code polluting the world's computers based on the justification you were "being creative and expressing yourself" - with a fucking buffer overflow on a public internet facing system.

I'm the one who got called in to rewrite the server at one company when nobody else could complete the project (note - this is a server, not just an application) - it spawns 400 threads at startup, each one waiting for work, does the task, then goes back into the pool. It responds to 1,000 requests per second, without ever having a memory leak or killing and re-spawning a thread to retrieve memory. It's not impossible to write leak-proof c and c++ code, but it is an art, one you will never be able to achieve, because you are no artist.

-- Barbie

Closed = Integrated = Cathedral. Open = Fragmented = Bazaar. Eric Raymond is once again revealed as a visionary whose prophecy has long legs.

I used to run a BBS. I remember both when September never ended (at least get your fucking link right, hessian), and when Gopher was useful and current. My first proper exposure to Usenet was a local BBS running Waffle, which pulled news down using dialup UUCP. I remember discussions about the whole of Usenet beginning to exceed the bandwidth of what a v.32bis modem could do in 24 hours.

I have done SLIP connections to ISPs with MS-DOS before there there were local ISPs, while Linux was a wet dream, and experienced the pain of the phone bill that happened after a few nights of falling asleep waiting for an FTP to finish over a v.32, 9600bps dialup to somewhere half-way across the US.

I'm only 31 right now, so I guess I started young.

Meanwhile: I like television, fast food, Coca-Cola, movies like X-men, disco (or at least some modern-ish stuff with disco roots), and corn dogs. I liked these things (as applicable) back then, too.

Please tell me, Grand Pubah: Should I hand in my Geek Card, or should you get off of my lawn?

Actually, it is YOU who should go invent your own phrase, and YOU who is [sic] wrong. Open has a clearly defined meaning in English, and the OSI and FSF have no mandate to redefine the language.

You seem to be implying that, even prior to the invention of the term "open source", it already had a meaning, but this is not the case: the term was created at a meeting of the minds http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html specifically so that we could avoid this sort of mixup and not be accused of "redefining the language".

I already addressed this in the post to which you are responding; when you reply to me with an answer I already anticipated, you're supposed to address that, too. I had given an example of someone defining "open source" as meaning that the room door is open as you look at the source code --are you going to turn around and say that that use of the word "open" is invalid where yours is valid? Please see http://web.archive.org/web/20060423094434/www.opensource.org/advocacy/faq.html Prior to that, the technical term was just used by spies to denote publicly available info, and was not even used in the software world.

But most telling of all is your apparent indifference to the way the software community is using the term "open source". When you say "nothing else matters", what you are saying is not just "the word 'open' already has a meaning" (ignoring its juxtaposition with the word "source") but also "I don't care how the rest of you use the English language as a mutually agreed-upon way of communication".

Don't agree? You'd need to cite a use of the term "open source" prior to February 1998 to mean what you say it means. Or else I'd ask you to get stuffed and take a hike. Well, of course I meant "obtain some stuffing and grab a fee increase"! What, are you saying that words have different meanings when used in certain specific combinations?

In regards to the unending Android vs. iPhone debate, this story made me think of Eric S. Raymond's The Cathedral and the Bazaar. As a long time user and proponent of open systems I surprised myself when I realized that I while I'd rather my computers be bazaar, I prefer my phone to be a little more cathedral. I wonder how many others are comfortably embracing this dichotomy?

http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/TECO.html

Sounds like hacking to me.

I do not think this word means what you think it means.

Don't feel bad, though. Thanks to popular (if technically incorrect) culture, the uninformed masses just lump everything to do with the extreme ends of computing, both good and bad, under the title "hacking".

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.

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 network, the and Internet address). 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.

The Jargon File

The New Hacker's Dictionary

The too long, didn't read version: hackers are Good Guys, crackers are (generally) Bad Guys. Calling crackers hackers is giving them unintentional, and often unwarranted, praise. Also, stop watching crappy movies.

Here's a historical lesson in automated spam-fighting in the ancient equivalent of fora:

http://catb.org/jargon/html/A/ARMM.html

I was reading USENET a lot at the time of the Depew incident. Newsgroups were pretty much unusable for nearly a month, and yucky for months after that.

http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cups-horror.html

Look at the postscripts, particularly "Are there settings you can do from the command line or hand-editing config files that cannot be done from the GUI? Are they documented anywhere? Does using the GUI erase these settings?"

Anyone who has ever dealt with SuSe's 'yast' tool knows that their tools overwite text configuration setting. X configuration tools are almost as bad, and don't speak to me about what RedHat's 'authconfig' tool does to PAM and nsswitch.conf.

Fortunately for other tools, "webmin" is an excellent example of a tool that Does Things Right. Most of its modules are cleanly written, deal with odd cases, and don't blow away existing settings. I highly recommend it for the education of new GUI authors. No Java based graphics: no pretending that the client is the server: just light, text processed information between client and server.

"Patent trolls" foster innovation because it seeks out inventors and encourages them to do pure research and development.

Ah, so I shouldn't be scared about the missed calls I have on my answering machine (while asleep after a larval stage), the patent trolls were trying to encourage me, not threat me with patent-law suits.

Here's a corresponding piece by a male: "Sex Tips For Geeks: How To Be Sexy" written by none other than "Mr Cathedral and Bazaar" Eric Raymond.

You make some good points. That said:

This is so easy to understand that I must conclude the numerous attempts to portray libertarian thought as some kind of anarcho-capitalism are simple demagoguery conducted by people who either have an agenda or have been propagandized by those who do. You do need a government to enforce notions like private property and civil rights and I know of no libertarian who would argue otherwise.

That can be fixed. Take a look at ESR's take on this:

The other 1/4 (including the author of this FAQ) are out-and-out anarchists who believe that "limited government" is a delusion and the free market can provide better law, order, and security than any goverment monopoly.

Please don't respond with "anyone who says this isn't a real libertarian" unless you have very specific arguments that prevent it from falling into the category of No True Scotsman.

There are self-described libertarians who are also self-described anarchists. From the way many of them talk (see e.g. that FAQ), I have no particular reason they are twisting words either when calling themselves 'libertarian' nor when calling themselves 'anarchist'. Anarchism is an extreme of libertarian thought, but it is definitely part of the spectrum.

You don't seem to appreciate the deliberate way in which I phrased my response. I said I know of no such person. I did not claim that no such person exists. It's a bit reactionary and knee-jerk to tell me about the "no true Scotsman" fallacy (of which I was already aware, for what it's worth).

Otherwise, thank you for revealing to me that my notions of libertarianism were unnecessarily narrow. I have a strong preference for not remaining ignorant and you've been helpful to that end.

You make some good points. That said:

This is so easy to understand that I must conclude the numerous attempts to portray libertarian thought as some kind of anarcho-capitalism are simple demagoguery conducted by people who either have an agenda or have been propagandized by those who do. You do need a government to enforce notions like private property and civil rights and I know of no libertarian who would argue otherwise.

That can be fixed. Take a look at ESR's take on this:

The other 1/4 (including the author of this FAQ) are out-and-out anarchists who believe that "limited government" is a delusion and the free market can provide better law, order, and security than any goverment monopoly.

Please don't respond with "anyone who says this isn't a real libertarian" unless you have very specific arguments that prevent it from falling into the category of No True Scotsman.

There are self-described libertarians who are also self-described anarchists. From the way many of them talk (see e.g. that FAQ), I have no particular reason they are twisting words either when calling themselves 'libertarian' nor when calling themselves 'anarchist'. Anarchism is an extreme of libertarian thought, but it is definitely part of the spectrum.

The Turner Diaries etc don't define US gun culture, which is quite diverse.

This guy is no closet Klansman waiting for the Apocalypse:

http://catb.org/esr/guns/

Nor is she:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/4/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment

"For the rest of us (non-Americans), we think a love of guns and a feeling of necessity to own fire-arms by U.S. citizens is as fucked up as it is in the Middle East for ordinary citizens to own automatic military assault rifles. "

Lots of us think your utter submission to your governments, preference for the safety of lawbreakers over personal self-defense, and general sheeple tendencies aren't admirable either. You've traded freedom for (the perception of) security as is your right, but that only works in certain situations and assumes benign government.

The Middle Eastern populace clearly needs them for self-defense, and even the Coalition forces in Iraq allow one per household. If you cannot use force to protect yourself you have no _effective_ right to self-defense.

While those of you who are totally comfortable with your government controlling your lives and who live in areas without violent demographic/sectarian/criminal conflict may not care for firearms, they do go a long way to ensure sovereignty over ones own space.

Americans killed their way to freedom in the Revolution, killed those who supported slavery until they surrendered at Appomattox, and if the government gets bad enough will vote with the bullet again. We tolerate quite a bit of corporate abuse, as do the rest of you, but woe betide the government that goes too far. Mao was right, political power does flow from the barrel of a gun, and the requirement to kill opponents who won't respond to reason means that the tools to do that are worth keeping.

Both self and wife have used firearms in self-defense without firing them. We live in a rural area where the cops can't do more than react (clean up the mess), so relying on the kindness of others isn't a good idea. If you don't have a gun, anyone physicallly superior to you can do what they will.

A 'cloud in a box' it is? Now here we finally have the long sought after proof that magic smoke makes these computaboxes work. That mister Ellison must be a smart guy to trap so much of the magic smoke in a box - he claims that little box contains a whole whoppin' cloud of the stuff. Don't let it escape or your box won't be computin' any longer!

Have Been Trolled :)

I stumbled onto a story of a PDP-10 with a mysterious "magic switch" some time ago; did it really happen or is it just a story? http://catb.org/jargon/html/magic-story.html

Have you noticed that Europe has a much bigger uptake of Linux, Firefox and in the older days Amiga? I've often wondered if this is Europe being "open minded"....

I would love to be able to say the same about Australia...

Or maybe it's just because they're anti-American and anti-corporate. Microsoft, Apple, etc. are American corporations, while Linux, Firefox, etc. are not-for-profit and thoroughly international. The seventh Halloween Document is the results of a survey conducted by Microsoft, and one of the findings is that a major reason for favoring Linux is as "an alternative to Microsoft". 61% of French respondents, 37% of Germans, and 35% of Swedes gave this as their top reason for supporting Linux. Not that it works better, or costs less, they just hate Microsoft.

Americans, on the other hand, are much more pro-corporate, and (duh) pro-American. This open-source stuff sounds suspiciously hippie and foreign. Australia is a pretty conservative and pro-American nation too, so the same might apply.

In fact, what's possibly the most pro-open source country in the world? Venezuela. You know, run by Hugo Chávez, who doesn't get along well with America. Is it a big surprise that they don't want their entire computing infrastructure dependent on Americans?

The next time anyone comes up with an explanation that makes them or those they admire (e.g., Europeans) look good, try thinking up a more cynical explanation. It will probably be more correct.

because this appears to be another aspect of Wheel of Reincarnation.

I'm old enough to remember a time where a computer was a series of bitty boxes tied together with cables. Then someone decided to integrate a lot of the stuff onto a motherboard, with just loosely-related stuff connected by cables to the motherboard. Then the loosely-related stuff got put into cards that plugged into the motherboard. Then that stuff just got integrated into the motherboard.

And now it's being reborn as stuff in bitty boxes connected together with cables.

I wonder what enlightement will be like, because karma appears to have been a bitch.

Over 40, cs degree '81, assembly, cobol, big iron. "Retired" early 90s. I got back into the business several years ago.
Don't know exactly what you want to do, but here is how I learned the modern industry.
0) Read this http://catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

1) Learn/Use linux. This is what got me back into the business. I could have my own real operating system.
2) Learn ip networking.
3) Learn the bash shell, learn bash scripting.
4) Install and experiment with apache and mysql.
5) Learn C. C is the granddaddy of all modern programming languages. This is the best tutorial I have ever found http://www.howstuffworks.com/c.htm
6) learn Google

If you do these things you'll be able to talk-the-talk.
The kids think C is old school, not thinking that nearly everything they execute today includes code written in C. I'm successful because I learned systems from the bottom up, starting with hardware and assembly languages, this is the old guy's edge. The young guys all started with a gui and worked their way down, not saying that is bad, just a different perspective.
We have "production environment" skills, most of the kids grew up with "break it and fix it" on their own personal systems. Again, not a bad thing, but it can be a hard habit to break.
I am not coding for a living, a few years ago I started working for a small hosting company. Working with the 20somethings is a blast, these are some sharp young folk, intelligent, hard working, creative and inquisitive.
I was so excited in the early 2000s to find the state of the open source community. All the software, and documentation I had to beg, borrow, steal, back in the 80s is available free now. I sold my record collection, and invested in a garage sale pc and fast internet.
I do work with windows, but not much. If you are looking for a big corporate, commercial, closed source, or proprietary, environment, I cannot help much. If you just want to get rich, don't start a job, start a business.
I'm just an old geek, who wants to be stimulated, educated, and challenged. I am well paid. I have a side business in case I want to get rich.

Eric Steven Raymond in his how to be a hacker is a good start, some say a Real Programmer Can Write in Any Language.

Then make your slide so it has each element of that equation you're teaching as a separate element to be introduced into the slide, instead of popping the whole equation at once, so you have to focus on each element. This isn't a matter of powerpoint being the problem, it's a matter of your usage being a problem. You go too fast; powerpoint isn't timed to go faster than you can speak. Click slower.

You still have the problem of the information on the ppt, no matter how granularly you organize it, is locked into a set order. Student questions don't come in any predictable order, so working with chalk provides you with the flexibility to incorporate questions naturally into your presentation.

Another problem inherent to ppt is macdinking. Sure, you can make every element of a complex diagaram or equation come up separately, but that requires fiddling with details. Even if you're extremely disciplined and efficient (which in my experience are not qualities promoted by ppt), it takes more time to do this explicitly in ppt than simply adding elements with chalk as you talk about them.

My students have never complained that my lectures go too slowly for them, and I make extensive use of the chalkboard. Even if the terms are already on the ppt (I use both together), writing it out as I talk about it provides visual emphasis. Some students are capable of scanning a ppt slide to learn a concept; others can learn very efficiently from the textbook; some need to hear me explain it, or see me sketch it out. My job is to reach as many different students, each with a different learning style, as possible.

yp

Many people will help you, but only if you do your part.

AC because quoting a genius (OK, weirdo asshole genius, but I only wish I was such a weirdo asshole!) should not earn karma.

Ah, it used to call doWhatIwant.

As an old LISPer, I miss DWIM...

Are any of the binary compatible with the DS?

No. But as ESR wrote in "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way":

Q: How can I use X to do Y?

A: If what you want is to do Y, you should ask that question without pre-supposing the use of a method that may not be appropriate.

What do you need binary compatibility with the DS for? Is it just that you want to be able to run homebrew apps and commercial DS games without carrying two devices?

Ummm... no.

iOS is not UNIX-like, BBOS6 is not UNIX-like, Android is not UNIX-like.

All of these use a kernel from a UNIX-like system, and maybe some other low-level stuff, but the entire top half of the platform is custom, serving only to _hide_ whatever remaining UNIX features may exist.

See Master Foo and the Ten Thousand Lines if you don't see why that matters. Back? OK, Maemo is AFAIK the _only_ UNIX-like OS shipping on phones these days. Why? Because it's the only one where I can type that pipeline. (Yes, it comes out of the box with an X terminal.)

If you don't like that angle, here's another: it's also (AFAIK) the only one where you can compile apps on the device -- those familiar with UNIX history will recall it was first shipped outside Bell as an development environment to build a standalone application that would run on bare iron, but wound up being kept as the operating system instead. (I doubt Maemo is fully self-hosting at this point, but it's damned close, especially compared to others.)

Calling the others UNIX-like systems is either a hilarious joke that I was simply too stupid to get (cue the whooshes!), or a gross ignorance of what UNIX is and why it's still relevant 40 years on.

As usual with slang, the special vocabulary of hackers helps hold places in the community and expresses shared values and experiences. Also as usual, not knowing the slang (or using it inappropriately) defines one as an outsider, a mundane, or (worst of all in hackish vocabulary) possibly even a suit. All human cultures use slang in this threefold way — as a tool of communication, and of inclusion, and of exclusion.

From the Jargon File, 3 Par. http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/introduction.html

0x11223344 was stored in memory as 0x33 0x44 0x11 0x22

I did it all for the NUXI (come on) the NUXI (come on)
So you can take that cookie and stick it up your (yeah).