Slashdot Mirror

Don't know links, but how about the first paper on public key encryption?

I'd be more interested in a broad set of interesting links about the internet, open source, and hacker culture rather than something too historical or self important. It would be a good place to point someone who was trying to find a clue or a good read.

Jim

Internet Overview

• Internet Timeline

Technical History

• Charles Spurgeon's Ethernet Web Site (several Ethernet historical documents here).
• I have a printed copy of an ALOHANET analysis, but can't seem to find one online.

Concept History

• As We May Think
• Project Xanadu ("Computer Lib/Dream Machines")
• The Cathedral and the Bazaar

A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace: http://hobbes.ncsa.uiuc.edu/sean/ declaration.html

• The SCSL is an amalgam of open source principles and for-profit licensing models of the past. It has been crafted in the spirit of openness avowed in Eric Raymond's now-famous article, "The Cathedral and the Bazaar"

• 9.6 Free the Software, Sell the Brand This is a speculative business model. You open-source a software technology, retain a test suite or set of compatibility criteria, then sell users a brand certifying that their implementation of the technology is compatible with all others wearing the brand. (This is how Sun Microsystems ought to be handling Java and Jini.)

• 28. Can code under the GNU Public License (GPL) be incorporated into the Jini technology code base?
  No. Under the terms of the GPL you may not provide Products under a license that may contain more restrictive terms

http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/h acker-howto.html
--
- Sean

Check out the Jargon File. Among US computer geeks, "hacker" has always referred to someone unusually skilled and dedicated, and a little bit obsessed. An artist, in short. Suits who ground out COBOL from nine to five might have thought of the golfing term instead, but since when do they matter?

Pardon my lack of knowledge, but aren't MMUs important in Unix? I mean, don't MMUs keep things like fandango on core from occuring? If they're there for a reason, are there any major disadvantages to having an MMU-less operating system? I has always just assumed that pocket-sized OSes (QNX, PalmOS, WinCE) were simply written with a lack-of-MMU in mind, thus preventing the problem. I'm really kind of interested in this, and it doesn't seem to be covered in their FAQ. Anyone have any info?

Ross

It's my opinion that IBM wishes to make their products more acceptable to the open-source community because IBM is not the slow-moving, monolithic corporation it was, say 30 years ago, and realizes the power and flexibility of the open-source development model. IBM is, after all, concerned primarily with IBM. If open-source provides them with the means to more rapidly develop better and more marketable products, there is nothing in their philosophy to stop them from adopting it for some projects.

Two things to watch out for in the way you're thinking:

Don't make the mistake of equating IBM and Microsoft. While M$ has actively attempted to FUD away the open source movement, IBM has maintained an at least tenative interest and association with open software.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that commercial != open-source. Open-source is a development model, not an end use, and there is nothing which prevents open-source software from being commercially viable and profitable. Look at Red Hat--sure you can download RH 6.0, but Red Hat still sells a lot of boxed copies of RH Linux, and even more support for RH Linux. For more on this, I recommend Eric S. Raymond's papers on the economic and social characteristics of open source which you can find here.

One last thing: Windows will never go open source. It would be too embarrassing.

I think Tom is a top-notch coder. I also think he needs serious work on his people skills. The two often go together, sad to say.

I've noticed this correlation too. I suspect many Slashdotters have. It's summed up rather well at the end of the Jargon File.

I'm an average coder with average people skills. I find this to be an acceptable tradeoff.

Try the "culture" universe from Iain Banks.

That's an interesting suggestion in terms of Brin's argument.

On the one hand, the Culture is held up as some sort of endpoint for the rational questioning of all things in society and the ultimate permissiveness of individual tastes: the egalitarian utopia which Brin asks us to struggle toward. It has no money, no laws, no violence or coercion, no secrecy outside your own head. (Plenty of values and social norms, though.)

On the other hand, the gap in power between the Minds and the human population is effectively disenfranchising. Most of the humans give their lives over to the one thing where competition with machines doesn't mean anything: having a good time. One could argue most of the machines are up to the same, but where the moral exercise of power requires the most complete understanding of the consequences of your actions, the important decisions must lie with the Minds. More to the point, the stories always focus around the experience of a single protagonist, often a person to some degree outside the human norms of the culture. A "throwback" or a "barbarian". These characters act as demigods to the societies the Culture intervenes in, usually by natural talent, other times by technological or ethical fiat, but they are also shown to have been instruments of the Minds that are the real movers behind the plot.

What little is described of the Culture's origins says they developed from a splinter group of humans who started a somewhat radical society and left the mainstream when it got unfriendly. (secessionist fandom anyone?) From isolation it grew into one of the dominant civilations in the galaxy, either by luck or the strength of its open development model. Presumedly they still work this way, because the Minds see it as the most efficient way to run things. Indeed, it seems to be be their evolution, not that of the humans, that's keep to society stable for millenia. Marain, the language the humans speak was designed by the Minds, and humans tend to drift into less utopian modes of thought when they stop speaking it. Witness the "almost inhuman detached passion" required to prosecute antagonists in a way least damaging to both sides, or the common occurence of characters gone native in "primitive" (meaning less egalitarian) societies. Perhaps this is an unfortunate 'way out' a la LeGuin's Disposessed.

How-we-get-there-from-here aside, I'd like to ask, "The best way to keep things running compared to what?" We're led to believe it's "compared to everything", like RMS's contention that open development makes sense from a rational point of view without an appeal to ideology. This has always rung false to me, like Star Trek's claim that the the android Data has no emotions. I think the Vulcans got it right: logic tells you the consequences of your actions, but it doesn't tell you with of those consequences you'll prefer. That comes down to values, or feelings, or something we don't understand from a technical point of view yet.

The message I've always taken from the Culture novels is that it's the values the society is based on, the values the Minds grew up with, that make it what it is. The consequences of our power to affect each other, which has only been magnified by technology, can't be avoided. Our only hope is to find ways of dealing with each other that improve our lives and avoid the miseries of the past for all of us. And that's what David Brin is talking about.

Heil Goodwin!

I wouldn't be so sure about that. According to ESR's Geeks with Guns page, RMS is a pretty good shot himself...
--

Perhaps instead of thinking about how to run the corporation of today with open source, you could start to think about how to run the corporation of tomorrow with it. Open source will eventually remove closed source software in all but specialty areas. And while I know there's debate about that all the time, in the end I firmly believe that closed source will be relegated to the occasional corner. ESR put the reasonings behind this beautifully in The Magic Cauldron. As for open source licenses, the OSI (who RMS doesn't even agree with) has "those Debian rules" as their definition of open source. The rules make sense. Trying to directly profit off of software in the future will be useless (excluding computer games, really high end/task specific apps, and other specialty stuff). Instead plan on selling support, as well as selling yourself as the original maker of the software. Businesses today and tomorrow will buy from the person who makes the software. Who could understand the program better, and thereby support it better than those who wrote it? Well, that's my point of view anyway. The future is Open Source/Free Software and I'm looking forward to it. -Mike

AFAIK = As Far As I Know

IIRC = If I Remember Correctly

I can't remember where I learnt these, I think I probably just guessed from context. I suppose they might be found in the Jargon File, though that's not really meant for that sort of thing.

Andrew.

I had cc'd the question to ESR; here's his reply:

No, you're reaping benefits you *do* see. The question is whether your benefit
from spreading the maintainance load exceeds your losses due to competition
from the free rider. In evaluating this tradeoff, remember to treat the
development costs as sunk.
--
Eric S. Raymond

The interesting thing is that he seems to believe that we should not force freedom onto other people. So one would think that he might be against the GPL. But this paper makes perfectly clear why we should use the GPL to make sure we will always hava free software.

The GPL makes sure that "the grass grows taller when it's grazed on" as shown by the examples given in the paper and explained in the Coping With Success chapter as follows: "Perhaps more importantly in present time, the software licenses that express these community norms in a binding legal form actively forbid Red Hat from monopolizing the sources of the code their product is based on. The only thing they can sell is a brand/service/support relationship with people who are freely willing to pay for that. This is not a context in which the possibility of a predatory monopoly looms very large."

I find it funny that a paper that contains a note about how we don't need the vocal minority which tries to convince people about the moral value of Free Software shows so clearly how that vocal minority keeps the players "good" and cooperative through the use of the GPL.

He's already given you your answer . You just didn't read it far enough.
-russ

Simply put, this guy is wrong. The Hacker dictionary, aka the Jargon File (available on esr's homepage) already has definitions for all of these. And, if I may be so bold, are much better written. But as everybody is entitled to their opinion.. here's mine. :)

Twits are the people that screw up their system and then call up the nerds at the helpdesk to fix it. The nerds play quake2 all day and sit in a lab unjamming printers and changing passwords, while the geeks are busy hammering out the next e-commerce software package in the "intro to C" class down the hall. Nerds are completely bent on *one* part of computing (be it programming, hardware, whatever). They're usually good. While geeks are more of a jack-of-all-trades. They know enough about computers in general, and can usually go in-depth on a variety of topics. Nerds have no social skills. Geeks have limited social skills. Twits.. well, we'll call them the normals-that-didn't-quite-make-the-cut-and-are-rea lly-stupid.

Ciao.

--

First of all, there's more than a single embedded systems market. There are truly low-end systems (think toaster thermocontrols) where a Unix-like OS is certainly overkill. On t he other hand, there's a very large market segment where a Unix-like OS is not overkill. Telecom switching equipment and industrial control panels fit into this category. In these segments, it's not unusual at all for your "small" computer to be a m68k, PPC, SPARC, or Pentium running at a respectable speed and having 4, 8, or even 32+ Mb of memory. This is the market space currently occupied by VxWorks ( Wind River Systems), pSOS ( ISI), LynxOS ( Lynx Real-Time Systems), VRTX ( Mentor Graphics), Chorus ( Sun), QNX ( QNX Software Systems), OS-9 ( Microware), and a whole bunch of others that I can't think of off the top of my head. Oh, yeah, and Windows CE.

I even know of folks who are using Solaris or AIX in this type of application. Not to mention the poor fools who are stuck with Windows NT for control and monitoring applications (don't laugh, it happens!).

Now, the majority of these real-time operating systems (RTOS) are POSIX-compliant, at least to some degree. Usually, this means that they implement the POSIX.1 APIs. So, except for the tasking and memory models, they look a heck of a lot like Unix/Linux. Some of them (LynxOS, QNX) are downright Unix clones (like Linux). All of them have TCP/IP networking available, all of them either already have Java support or have promised it Real Soon Now, lots of them even use gcc/gdb as their toolchain.

Given that, why not Linux? Margins tend to be sensitive here, so you'd really like to eliminate those per-cpu royalties that the commercial (I should say "proprietary", since MontaVista is obviously commerical) vendors charge. And (contrary to what some /.'ers have posted) uptime is critical in many of these applications. Long-term supportability and credibility is also critical, as many of these systems may have production lifetimes of years, and field lifetimes of decades. Customers already recognize the value of having access to the source code in these circumstances, and they tend to demand it from their software vendors (it is usually provided under NDA or escrowed).

Now, check out the founders of MontaVista. Jim Ready helped put together VRTX, one of the first commerically-successful RTOS's. Jerry Kirk founded Microtec, which is the dominant vendor of compilers and debuggers for embedded systems (the XRAY debugger is the most-used debugger in the embedded world). So I would guess these two ought to have a good understanding of how to put together a OS + development enviroment that would appeal to the RTOS market.

It looks to me like, between this and eCos, we're about to see The Cathedral and the Bazaar dynamic in yet another OS market.

While Linux is larger than Emacs, at least Linux has the excuse that it needs to be. -- Linus Torvalds

What Mr. Metcalfe misses is the fact that it's not the platform that's new, it's the method. In the early days, substantial innovation in the field was done overnight (with gross excesses in caffeine.) Then, corporations and teams were formed to move the best programmers into management (c.f. "The Mythical Man-Month" or "The Dilbert Principle", your choice.) A revolutionary new method of software development is the concept being successfully proven here (the Bazaar,) a fact that seems to have escaped Mr. Metcalfe's attention. Analogies to farming have no relevance, since software is grown once and harvested without limit. Quality, not quantity, of software farmers is key. Analogies to Marxism and communism have little relevance to this meritocracy (another fairly new concept.) It appears that Mr. Metcalfe has been caught in the pundit trap on this one- he attempts to draw deep conclusions based on superficial or fundamentally flawed understanding. In this case he happened to be the proverbial blind man standing behind the elephant. "I'm not sure what it is, but I think it stinks!"

For a couple of months of that time I wasn't actively
using it, so YMMV.

At least, that's my understanding. (I saw the BOF sessions advertised last year for something and had to go and find out, too :)) My examples of what are typical BOF interests might be a bit skewed, as this is yet another area I wot not of. They're usually scheduled against the evenings, but they can clash with talks, too. They do try to schedule them sensibly (a kernel internals talk against a graphics BOF, for example) but it's not easy, given the typical range of interests of many conference attenders.

How typical. I write all that and _then_ check the Jargon File. Oh well, apparently I'm roughly right: BOF in Jargon File (I hope).

Interesting that this is an almost-identical repeat of a previous post. Trying to get as much attention as possible, eh?

I can't decide if this is just flamebait or genuine astroturf. (When an MS person writes something like this, posing as an ordinary person, he is trying to create the appearance of grass-roots support for MS. Astroturf is fake grass. ESR seems to thinks it's a verb; I think it's a noun.)

I suspect the latter, but do they really think anyone here is dumb enough to take this seriously? Maybe they're just doing it so they can elsewhere claim to have the support of some /. readers. Let's all watch for a ZDNet article referring to this /. discussion and quoting only that comment. (!) Or maybe they're just flamebaiting in hopes of being able to quote (dumb, obscene) replies and show how immature we are.

It's pathetically transparent. Why won't they just go away?

David Gould

Look at the jargon file.

Look up cracker, and then look up hacker.

Enough said. ;)

Look at the jargon file.

Look up cracker, and then look up hacker.

Enough said. ;)

Look at the jargon file.

Look up cracker, and then look up hacker.

Enough said. ;)

A "cracker" is malicious. Most sites are cracked if they are vandalized. A "hacker" is someone who evokes certain information from a machine or person or thing by guiding the thing/person in the desired direction. Another term is "Social Engineering". If I ask you questions, and I get the desired answers from you, I have hacked your brain. I am a hacker. I am a social engineer.

One definition: "Whereas crackers sole aim is to break into secure systems, hackers are more interested in gaining knowledge about computer systems and possibly using this knowledge for playful pranks."

Another definition: "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."

And yet another: "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."

I hope that makes sense.

A "cracker" is malicious. Most sites are cracked if they are vandalized. A "hacker" is someone who evokes certain information from a machine or person or thing by guiding the thing/person in the desired direction. Another term is "Social Engineering". If I ask you questions, and I get the desired answers from you, I have hacked your brain. I am a hacker. I am a social engineer.

One definition: "Whereas crackers sole aim is to break into secure systems, hackers are more interested in gaining knowledge about computer systems and possibly using this knowledge for playful pranks."

Another definition: "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."

And yet another: "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."

I hope that makes sense.

So why don't you build a garden shed/lean-to
and stick your big fuck-off dish in there?

K.
-
How come there's an "open source" entry in the
Jargon File, when there isn't a "free software" one?

>Ask the people of Kosovo if the Internet trumps government power

Well, let's ask the people of Russia. The 'net was the only way to get news in and out of the country when the communists made their last attempt to sieze power in 1991. They could not censor the 'net. Details here.
So yes, the internet trumps government power

How about acolyte?



I liked the idea of an acolyte being sort of one who is in training and always learning. It kind of fits doesn't it? Check out the Jargon File for the "official" definition.

----------------

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein

Dear Anonymous Coward,

I took your advice and got a frigging girlfriend.
Now I have two. However, I'm having trouble
keeping them in the same habitat, as they tend
to fight. Is there anything I can do to
prevent this, short of getting another tank?

Yours sincerely,
Confused but Carnally Sated in Wolverhampton.
How come there's an "open source" entry in the
Jargon File, when there isn't a "free software" one?

Most people haven't read the official Jargon File definitions of hacker and/or cracker. This means that the more common word will be used the vast majority of the time, even though it is wrong. (consider that "irregardless" is not a word, for example.)

In my experience (starting in the late '70's), breaking into a system was often referred to "hacking" because the easiest metaphor to explain what a person was doing was that of someone using a machete to chop (hack) a new path through a jungle (security) into a central location (the targeted system). "Cracking" was related to breaking through security codes, etc., and was often referred to as being similar to cutting one's way through the walls with a "hack" saw.

Outside of computer circles, one does not "hack" something together. A person might "jury rig", "cobble", or "string" something together to see if it works, but the "hacking" part of the process is usually where something's getting dismantled in order to be reused in the new gadget. In this sense, I "hack" your code to get at the usable pieces. But am I really "hacking" when I put them back together?

I guess what I am driving at is that the "hacker's culture" is not a a "slash and destroy" mentality. It's much more an inventor's culture -- take things apart and put them together in useful new ways.

This is (IMHO) the single most important distinction which we need to convey to mainstream public and media.
------------

Most people haven't read the official Jargon File definitions of hacker and/or cracker. This means that the more common word will be used the vast majority of the time, even though it is wrong. (consider that "irregardless" is not a word, for example.)

In my experience (starting in the late '70's), breaking into a system was often referred to "hacking" because the easiest metaphor to explain what a person was doing was that of someone using a machete to chop (hack) a new path through a jungle (security) into a central location (the targeted system). "Cracking" was related to breaking through security codes, etc., and was often referred to as being similar to cutting one's way through the walls with a "hack" saw.

Outside of computer circles, one does not "hack" something together. A person might "jury rig", "cobble", or "string" something together to see if it works, but the "hacking" part of the process is usually where something's getting dismantled in order to be reused in the new gadget. In this sense, I "hack" your code to get at the usable pieces. But am I really "hacking" when I put them back together?

I guess what I am driving at is that the "hacker's culture" is not a a "slash and destroy" mentality. It's much more an inventor's culture -- take things apart and put them together in useful new ways.

This is (IMHO) the single most important distinction which we need to convey to mainstream public and media.
------------

Back to the early 80's???? Hacking goes back a lot longer than that. Friend, you need to read the Jargon File. The term "Hacker" goes back to the 1960s, if not even before.>

Crackers: The act of breaking into a computer system; what a cracker does. also: a malicious meddler who tries to discover sensitive information by poking around. hacker: also tends to connote member in the global community defined bythe net. hacker: a person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities.. 2. one who programs enthusiastically even obsessively or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming.
I repeat..hackers don't behave maliciously, cept for good political reasons.
You missed ESR point! You should have say hackers don't intrude, even for good political reasons. Also you don't use the latest version of the Jargon File: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/. It is much more clear:
cracking n.
[very common] 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.

Definition: "cracker" = person who (attempts to) intrudes systems belonging to other people.

Fact: "cracker" != "hacker", because nowadays, free Unices, Windows, WindowsNT, and applications provide enough/sufficiently complex programs and source code to play with. If most of the hackers only had ZX81s (Basic, 1 KB RAM), then at least, it would be understandable that they tried to get access to bigger computers. But nowadays its definitly no longer the case ; the "hacker" really interested in systems would read Linux kernel source, or use SoftICE to watch Windows kernel running ; and certainly not intrude in people systems.

Fact: "crackers" should be called "crackers", because "hackers", the ones who leave others' systems alone, existed and used this name many years before most current crackers were born ; see the Jargon file history: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/jar gon.html.

Of course it's no surprise that The Jargon File maintained by ESR make these points clear:

• Cracker: 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, benign, 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. For a portrait of the typical teenage cracker, see warez d00dz.

• Hacker: 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. [...]

Honestly, I can't imagine why anyone would loose his time craking systems, and then whining because justice is harsh. Maybe that's the case, but why the e2fscking hell have these morons to mess with systems that don't belong to them ? Why ?

Definition: "cracker" = person who (attempts to) intrudes systems belonging to other people.

Fact: "cracker" != "hacker", because nowadays, free Unices, Windows, WindowsNT, and applications provide enough/sufficiently complex programs and source code to play with. If most of the hackers only had ZX81s (Basic, 1 KB RAM), then at least, it would be understandable that they tried to get access to bigger computers. But nowadays its definitly no longer the case ; the "hacker" really interested in systems would read Linux kernel source, or use SoftICE to watch Windows kernel running ; and certainly not intrude in people systems.

Fact: "crackers" should be called "crackers", because "hackers", the ones who leave others' systems alone, existed and used this name many years before most current crackers were born ; see the Jargon file history: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/jar gon.html.

Of course it's no surprise that The Jargon File maintained by ESR make these points clear:

• Cracker: 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, benign, 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. For a portrait of the typical teenage cracker, see warez d00dz.

• Hacker: 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. [...]

Honestly, I can't imagine why anyone would loose his time craking systems, and then whining because justice is harsh. Maybe that's the case, but why the e2fscking hell have these morons to mess with systems that don't belong to them ? Why ?

Definition: "cracker" = person who (attempts to) intrudes systems belonging to other people.

Fact: "cracker" != "hacker", because nowadays, free Unices, Windows, WindowsNT, and applications provide enough/sufficiently complex programs and source code to play with. If most of the hackers only had ZX81s (Basic, 1 KB RAM), then at least, it would be understandable that they tried to get access to bigger computers. But nowadays its definitly no longer the case ; the "hacker" really interested in systems would read Linux kernel source, or use SoftICE to watch Windows kernel running ; and certainly not intrude in people systems.

Fact: "crackers" should be called "crackers", because "hackers", the ones who leave others' systems alone, existed and used this name many years before most current crackers were born ; see the Jargon file history: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/jar gon.html.

Of course it's no surprise that The Jargon File maintained by ESR make these points clear:

• Cracker: 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, benign, 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. For a portrait of the typical teenage cracker, see warez d00dz.

• Hacker: 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. [...]

Honestly, I can't imagine why anyone would loose his time craking systems, and then whining because justice is harsh. Maybe that's the case, but why the e2fscking hell have these morons to mess with systems that don't belong to them ? Why ?

Interesting quote, however please keep in mind that
1) E's not a cathedral
2) see the cathedral model of development versus
bazaar style paper.

Cathedral and Bazaar

-Rich Larson
-too lazy to log in.

Actually, I "got into computers" because they're so trivial in comparison to general relativity and particle mechanics. Dropped out of school with 12 credits to go on my physics bs, grad school lurking around the corner, and I'd just burned out.

Actually, I wouldn't say that computer science is easier than physics - but there is a different type of thinking involved. I find the logic of code and algorithms more pleasant to deal with than cranking through ugly diff eq's.

I have to agree that classifying geeks into narrow categories is not a good idea; but, I do fit the category of J. Random Hacker pretty well.

I know that I was bagged at high school for being geeky, but who cares? Do other people opinions _really_ make that much difference to how you think about yourself? I certinaly didn't give myself an ulcer over it.

There's more involved than simply being unpopular. As a kid, I was bullied and beat up; I can remember being literally spit on by other boys. My family was often a target of minor vandalism. There were times I was afraid to leave the house because I might get into a fight. (I'm doing much better now; besides being a reasonably successful hacker (in the Jargon File sense), I hold a nidan (second degree black belt) in karate. Nobody bothers me B->; and I teach a lot of kids, some of whom have a bit of the geek in them.)

The Voice article just doesn't get it. We're not talking about being unpopular, about not getting a date for the dance; we're talking about being physically and mentally abused.

So what if these geeks are mostly white suburbaners? I'm reminded of Repo Man:

Duke: The lights are growing dim. I know a life of crime led me to this sorry fate. And yet I...I blame society. Society made me what I am.

Otto: That's bullshit. You're a white suburban punk just like me.

Duke: But it still...hurts....

Geeks may not be experiencing the level of oppression undergone by various racial and religious groups.

But it still hurts.

My guess would be that they're looking at
the ripper/encoder software. If they could add
encryption that uses a hardware code (like a
hard disk identifier or a portable player's
serial number) then an encrypted file would
be tied to a single computer/player. The problem
with doing this is controlling the ripper
software.

If this is the way they plan to go, they should
start leaning on authors of ripping progs soon.
Get your copies while you can (I may be being
a bit melodramatic here).
How come there's an "open source" entry in the
Jargon File, when there isn't a "free software" one?

is it just me or do others have a mistrust of money in the development of oss? i cant see it really taking off for for small-meduim projects, but it may have a benifit for large (say a real gnu browser) or will it? with money comes some degree of organisation and rules/regs.

the bazaar method of software development has 'evolved' because it's efficeint. efficeincy in software development means software gets out faster. how can 3rd parties not but get in the way, while they sort, shuffle and haggle over their own red tape?

while i bet ppl can think of good reasons why money for os development, what about the dynamics and effects this has on efficiency of output? oss at the moment is lean and mean with as few people to guide development as possible.

imop, until there's some runs on the board, this type of 'top-down' approach will be interesting to watch, but not a powerhouse of development as some may think, in the bottom-up world of oss.

Microsoft has one purpose statement: _MAKE MONEY_. All their actions are just logical extensions of this goal (combined with a few shady morals). Microsoft doesn't really have anything against Linux, but they want to destroy it because the Open Source movement is threatening their market. If destroying Linux will lead to more M$ capital, so be it.
I think that, yes, MS will begin pushing their own applications for Linux. They know they can't destroy it - it's too big, too late. What they can do is edge out their competition in this fresh playing field. Ever hear of FUD? As long as a similar Microsoft product is in the works, some of the people (all of the time) will forego buying a competitor's product. After all, you never know when They are going to fall under the shadow of the Giant.
An anti-Linux team may not really translate to getting rid of Linux - it may mean USING it instead. There's a huge, glorious, new market there - can you really picture M$ not getting their fingers into this pie somehow? Get ready to see "NT Server for Linux" on the next round of shiny brochures!
It would be interesting to see the correspondence between the anti-Linux team and the team porting IE.
Wouldn't it be _interesting_ to see the source code of IE for Linux? Keep a sharp eye on your filesystem if you ever install it. Remember, M$ has done twisty little things before (see " Inside the Windows 95 Registration Wizard").

Funnily enough I was looking at this last night.
I'd have to say that for me the first on the
todo list would be morphing. Its absence makes up
lot of the animations out there unwatchable.

K.

How come there's an "open source" entry in the
Jargon File, when there isn't a "free software" one?

Netscape 3 had a kiosk mode that did exactly that.

Netscape 4 also has a kiosk mode, but it's a
secured feature. You have to allow it via the
privilegeManager object first.

This is as it should be. It would be quite
easy to create a Windows-like full-screen
view in Netscape 4 that could fool the average
luser. See rive.boxybutgood.com's WindowMaker
simulation for a non-full-screen example.

K.
-
How come there's an "open source" entry in the
Jargon File, when there isn't a "free software" one?

The file specification they released for Flash
was incomplete. The parser source code they
released was buggy. They've been promising an SDK
forever. Basically, they've been stringing along
the open standards-loving Web community so as to
prevent a real open standard from getting off
the ground, IMHO.

That said, they may have read the writing on the
wall. And it is a pretty decent format - if only
it were more accessible programmatically.

K.
-
How come there's an "open source" entry in the
Jargon File, when there isn't a "free software" one?

Flamebait is saying something that you know will be offensive to many readers, with the intention of starting a flamewar. Basically, you do it because it amuses you to annoy people and then watch them spluttering indignantly.

Around here, people tend to use trolling to mean pretty much the same thing, which would make these designations redundant, but proper trolling is a lot more subtle: you say something that seems stupid or otherwise flameworthy, but in fact contains some sort of clever trick, so that anyone who flames you only makes himself look [more] stupid. See the Jargon File entry. It can be a real artform, and as such would not deserve to be deprecated, but there's not a lot of that sort around here. The closest example I can think of is when someone says something sarcastic that, if meant seriously, would be flamebait, and someone somehow misses the sarcasm and flames accordingly.

Another designation that might be appropriate in such cases is "Just Plain Stupid", since sometimes it's hard to tell whether a post is flamebait, trolling, or astroturf, and then you realize you're reading too much into it -- the writer is simply a moron. This would be pretty much interchangeable with the earlier suggestion "Waste Of Bandwidth".

David Gould

Sure is classy. And shows that the perpretators were responsible enough to care about others' safety when they did it. The Jargon File ( http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/) describes some other similar hacks performed previously by MIT alumni, and show the same characteristic touch as this recent one.

But what I like most is the fact that the police officers were cool enough to leave the decoration 'til Thursday.