I grew up in what I considered the “American expectation” education system, in that sleep if for the weak and you should be prioritizing all work over anything else. This sort of mentality has definitely flowed over to college expectations of success, and will probably flow into the workforce. Notre Dame students brag about how much little sleep they’re getting and how much instant ramen they can survive on. It sort of made me realize that there is an aspect of the hacker mentality embedded into educational culture. Maybe it’s because hackers are sort of born from this college life, but I can see how the two definitely overlap.  My parents definitely have done a good job in trying to prevent me from living this unhealthy life style, but these four years away from personal parent nagging have in the end left my sleep and eating schedule a mess. My only hope is that after graduation I somehow fix this schedule. What I’m trying to say is that I believe that Linus didn’t fall into the stereotypes of a “true hacker” because he grew up in Finland, which has different cultural norms.  These different cultural norms are what I feel affected his mentality on the hacker lifestyle. I think this falls under the lines of “nature vs nurture.” Linus grew up with less of an educational culture that expected you to sleep less for the sake of success. Plus, he had the chance to play with computers since he was a kid. It all happened due to the circumstances of how he grew up that he became the non-traditional hacker he is today.

Now, Linus Torvalds never seems to fall under the stereotype of a “true hacker” and that is not a bad thing. I think that because he doesn’t follow the true hacker rules is why he’s so successful. He values sleep, food, and getting away from the bright screens every once in a while. His story of success though is both very similar and significantly different to people like Bill Joy and Steve Jobs. Linus doesn’t act like he wants the success, but he wants to ability to follow his passion. He clearly enjoys the world of computer science and wasn’t thinking of making it an amazing open source success story. They saying if you love what you do, then you’ll find some way to be a success from it really does apply. I don’t want to say that Bill Joy or Steven Jobs didn’t have passion for their work either, but they just expected to take it into the direction of a more marketable conclusion. I think what I appreciate about Linus is that he isn’t trying to be an overlord or dictator of the open source world. Though he does get angry and rants when he disagrees with something, it honestly reminds me of the sort of Gordon Ramsay rants, but with a hacker instead of a chef.

In the end, I’m a realist, but an optimist, which the two views contrary to popular belief can co-exist with each other.  Linus Torvalds has made a major impact on the world of open source, but to say that there will never be as big a success story in open source is limiting.

When I was 4-years-old my mom and dad took me over to a house I thought was the coolest place ever. The second-story balcony had a very large pile of varying sizes of plush penguins I loved, and I got to play with other kids while mom and dad talked with adults. I was having so much fun that when my parents said it was time to go I cried about it. Yes, I had a temper tantrum in front of Linus Torvalds, a man I had for the longest time just considered a nerdy friend of my nerdy parents. Who also had a funny accent. How was I supposed to know that years down the line I would be learning that he’s considered one of the greatest hackers in the history of computer science?

Linus Torvalds grew up as the classic nerd of school and family life. He found the computer that his grandfather had to be more interesting than playing sports and happened to be naturally smart enough to get away with not studying a lot. He didn’t fit in with the “cool” people stereotype. Even when his father told him to join the basketball team, he ended up being bad at the sport and hating that he signed up. All these aspects described about Linus’ childhood fit very well into the life of a hacker. The key aspect here was that he had a fascination with computers at a young age, and wanted to learn more about them. Growing up in Finland seemed also ideal for a young hacker since it has become a hub in Europe for advancements in tech. Linus continued on meeting and exceeding the standards for living as a hacker when he found it just a better idea to create his own operating system. He saw there were systems that weren’t working, so he had an itch to make it better, faster, and in general more effective. When Linus created his own operating system, it was out of the need to make something that would work. He worked with the computer he had, a Commodore VIC-20, and learned to code because he had a love for it and that enjoyment he had for coding is what drew him to want to make it better. From his hacker life, Linus found others that also had the same interest in solving an “itch” when it came to computer programming. This was all to solve an itch though, not to make a big company that would influence the world of computing. Much like the title of the book, he in a way did it very much “just for fun.”

It’s honestly very difficult for me to think about the similarities in our childhoods, seeing as part of my childhood was that I would listen to meetings and friendly chats between him and my dad. In a weird way though, I did begin to see similarities, while also seeing distinct differences. We both just so happened to grow up in an area that would become a major place for computer science and engineering. Finland and California seem to actually have more similarities in tech to each other than I first though. I had always thought that California wanted to really be like Japan, but maybe they want to take some  influence from Finland, too. Also, we both happened to be introduced to the potential that computers had when we were young. I actually remember my dad calling me into his office and taking apart a computer to show me the basic parts of one. The difference though is timing, and Torvalds grew up during the perfect time for him to start and spread is own operating system and heavily influence the world of open source. Dad always said this to me that Linus’ success and his own happened through luck and timing. They both happened to be in the right place at the right time, and while some may just say that that’s the business side of my dad talking, I can definitely see why he claims that. I also happened to be born and grew up in the right place and the right time to be influenced by the world of tech, but it’s different because I’ve honestly yet to find something that I would consider a true “itch.” I definitely has a desperate need t join the gaming industry and create games that people can enjoy, but I don’t think that’s considered an itch. It’s more of a need to entertain, like a stand-up comedian wants to make their audience laugh. One of my greatest fears is that my story will always be “Larry Augustin’s daughter did…” I don’t want to ride on the tailcoats of my dad’s success, nor do I want to live in his shadow. I want to make my own name in the world and find my own itch and passion in computing. It’s just a gut feeling, but that itch may be in the world of gaming.

I never really thought of open source as a”business strategy,” more like a strong form of belief that has guidelines with a very large amount of followers. In truth, it doesn’t seem to be ideal when considering it a business strategy, but that doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with the ideas and process of open source. I don’t think the open source community would have grown as widespread and popular as it is now if it didn’t somehow show forms of effectiveness and something that people found they could believe in.

In order to organize my thoughts, I want to first look at open source with regards to making money. Businesses run through the production and sale of goods, and in this case, the software. Open source projects allow for people to collectively work and participate on a project that they find interesting. Now, if the project is being debugged and written by a widespread group of contributors, how is it making money and are the coders being compensated for their work? This is one of the reasons I never really saw open source as a real business strategy because it relies not on paying someone for their expertise, but allowing a large group of people to peer-review the project. I find that there are times in software projects that a large amount of eyes is needed to help construct it over a team of specialized eyes. This isn’t a bad model, it’s just noticeably unclear exactly how the software itself is making money and if the contributors get some form of gain in the whole model. Some options have been through allowing users to donate to an open-source project. This can include things such as creating Kickstarters or using Patreon. Another method is selling open source-software-project- themed mugs, shirts, backpacks, schwag, and things like that to gain revenue. These are some of the various ways that open source projects can get revenue. I also think when an open source project is starting out, it can’t necessarily afford to limit the number of independent peer reviewers. “Collecting rent” seems to be much more for the open source projects that have gotten bigger and need more funding as an option. Now, “services instead of software” is another model that has come about when trying to establish a better form of making revenue. Bigger companies also can use open source software and the open source community then gets a direct revenue streams from the company. Financially, these bigger companies should provide compensation for the software they use though, especially if they can afford it.

Looking at the open core model, I can see how this model is becoming more widespread as an option, and an evolution, of the original open source model. In fact, open core heavily reminds me of free-to-play gacha games. These app games allow one to download and play for free, but there are in-game purchases and unlockable chapters, characters, or stages that can only be be accessed by buying the full game. You can still play the game, but if you really like it enough, you can buy and add-on to the game. The open core model is just this, giving people free software that has more features that can be included if you like it enough to buy the full version. It seems like a logical business leap in order to find ways to be more active in trying to make open source more of a business-like model. However, I don’t think that open core will wipe out open source, since time how shown open source projects’ innovative methods of creating revenue. Open core it just another form of exploring the revenue-creating options that open source has, just with a little more controversy to the original belief of free software. This magic cauldron still seems to have plenty of power.

Just I side note, I find it fascinating how video games and their creation process have evolved over the years. They’ve become a true anomaly as technically they are piece of software that has much more success with a larger company overseeing the work rather than leaving it to open source.

 

I’ve never really thought of why people participate in the world of open source. Open source just always felt like part of the internet since both fit so well together. To be able to participate in a community of people working to complete a project because they found a reason to work on it for me just worked great with the mass connection the internet gives people. People are a part of hundreds of different communities on the internet and contribute to these communities in different ways. Open source just so happens to also embody that sense of community that can be created on the internet. If there was a community on the internet dedicated to promoting and contributing to anime-boyband-rap-battles, then I was certain there would be people willing to contribute to a much more reasonable, and helpful, open source project. My thoughts have always went to just accepting if something exists on the internet and never asking why or how. Yes, I just accepted there was a community of people promoting and contributing to anime-boyband-rap-battles, but I never thought why they ended up being created in the first place. For me, the internet just had the ability to connect people together so that these communities could be created. There are hundreds of open source projects that people contribute to the final project, but why?

ESR and the ideology that surrounds hackers does give me some different perspectives, or rather, the same perspective from a different angle. There are varying degrees of zealotry that people can feel to open source, from considering it their life to taking it up as more of a hobby. Also, there are people that participate in open source as a form of rebellion towards the commercial. These two aspects, anti-commercial and zealotry (rebellion and passion), are shown to be in varying degrees as motivation for people working within open source communities. It’s funny to see these parts of open source contributors emphasized since they seem to attribute to the idea that hackers can act and think much like artists. An open source project is like a group of artist-hackers getting together and contributing to a mural. Now, ESR continues on to go into more depth of the open source culture, describing both the role of reputation and how it’s a gift economy. The power of reputation makes sense in a gift economy. With a gift economy having social status on what you give away means that what becomes important is one’s reputation. By having a good reputation for giving things that are good and useful, your status can definitely be raised. In respect to the open source community, there rings some truth into this perspective.  If you contribute good criticism, good code, and good participation to an open source project, you are likely to get more noticed. The more various amounts of open source projects you contribute to, you get a better reputation within the community. With the greater reputation comes a greater social status in the community, to the point your words have much more weight in the open source community. Not only this, but if you create your own open source project, you’re giving a chance to create a community of like-minded people, which also has a larger influence on people.

Then there are also the taboos that ESR lists as part of the open source community. I find the second and third point reasonable, but I disagree when if comes to the first point and forking. There have been forks of open source projects in the past for good reasons, and these forks aren’t usually frowned upon. I think the more accurate taboo is forking a project and acting like you’re doing something cool and innovative all yourself. If anything there is more a social pressure to not take other people’s hard work and code and write it off as your own work. Since contribution is important within the open source community, it only makes sense that giving people credit is considered important.

I’ve said this before but I’ll say it again, hacker culture is very similar to that of the modern hipster culture today. The idea that hacker culture hates the idea of egotism is in correlation to the hacker culture being very “stick-it-to-the-man” culture.  Mainstream culture consists of stereotypical egotism through the members higher up on the social ladder because they control more. So it makes sense that hipster culture, the hacker culture, chooses to be against that because of the egotism being more mainstream. If the open source hacking community has those who are anti-commercial, this makes sense because there tends to be a sense of egotism that comes with commercial. For me, participating in open source has always been because I feel motivated to participate in a community that I enjoy and can assist in however I can. When I don’t find too many holes in ESR’s description, I think it may be complicating thing, like trying to make parts sound more important, in regards to what the open source community is. If there is a bug, I want to help fix it and if I have an interest in the project, I want to help contribute to it because if something I can have motivation to work on it.

 

The cathedral model of software development is when the source code is made available when software is released. The code though is restricted to a specific group of software developers between releases. The bazaar model of software development is when code is accessible on the internet 24/7. It isn’t limited to a selected group of software developers like in the cathedral model. To summarize, the cathedral model has a secluded group of software developers working on it while the bazaar model makes the code public for all to work on. Now, the real question is which is truly the better model for software development.  To be as fair as possible, the cathedral model does appeals to my sense of order in that there is a specific group that must work with the code to improve it on each update they release. This seclusion can help keep things organized and help to know more exactly who is working on what in the software. The bazaar model is generally more appealing to me though because it is, well, open source. Being publicly open on the internet allows for more people with passion to help work on the project. This also allows for users to see how the software is being updated and there is now more of a connection between the users and the engineers. Though I may be just biased in that I grew up being almost brainwashed to root for open source, I still find the bazaar model more appealing because of how much it’s grown in popularity. The closest thing to the cathedral model I’ve experienced is class group projects. The whole idea of the bazaar and freedom to understand and help with the source code is very appealing. That’s why it’s difficult for me to think that open source approach is not going to take over the future of software development.

The best example of such a drastic switch to more open source in models is Microsoft, which passionately called open source systems like Linux a cancer on this world. The company made a complete 180 on their views though, joining the Linux Foundation and declaring they now love open source. It seems fairly clear that the bazaar model of computer engineering is just overall more likable and friendly towards both the software engineers and users. Despite all the signs and even my own preferences, I still don’t want to count the cathedral method as worthless just yet, even if the world seems to be moving towards the life of open source. There are justifiable reasons that the cathedral model would be used, and I think having differenced methods to develop code can be useful.

Now, in Eric S. Raymond’s The Cathedral and the Bazaar, he lists out 19 principles that are basically considered attributes of good practice in open source software development. Raymond lists these principles out in order to show what he has found important in open source software development. Upon looking at this list, I of course found principles that I agreed with, and others I found unnecessary. The first principle made sense to me because it basically means that you should have motivation, a reason, to develop a piece of software. Not having that sense of need to create the specific software just hinders the creation process. If I don’t feel like the software is helping or fixing something, I feel less inclined to continue working on it. This feeling is actually similar to the 18th principle. You should be interested and motivated to work on a project. If you aren’t interested, finding the motivation is tough, and I find that motivation through desperation to finish a project is bad to work with. I also find that the fifth principle is fairly important, especially since software now is continuously updated. Software is shown to outlast the developers, and that’s something I think tends to be forgotten. Instead of it slipping into obscurity once the creator can no longer work on it, it also has to be the creator’s job to find someone who is just as passionate in continuing to work on the development.  The 8th principle (“Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix obvious to someone.”) appeals to me because I immensely believe in strength in numbers. Having enough eyes looking at code and you can comb through the problems with ease. Finally, I appreciate the 11th principle for recognizing that there is importance in the users, since they are the ones that will be using the interface and the final result. If the have an idea on how to improve something, it can be valuable to listen to them.

I’ve probably mentioned the fact I grew up in Silicon Valley a million times, like it’s my one defining character trait as a character on a sitcom or something. I hate having to call upon it like an overused trope, but it’s startups, and the Silicon Valley is a famous hub for startups. Of course though because of this one defining character trait I happened to be surrounded by startup companies and startup propositions. My dad worked with various startup companies and I’ve watched since my childhood the intense amount of work and number of failures that comes from startups. I can say, with the most instinctual confidence due to these observations, that startups are not the easy way to make a quick, rich buck. If someone is starting a startup hoping that this is the case, they’re going to be sorely disappointed. There is a very high chance a startup will not succeed, and the effective success of successful startups should as a sole example. This is something I feel needs to be clear because Paul Graham takes this confidence in startups from his own personal success.

I find that Graham’s essays this time around made me think and say to myself several phrases and words that if this wasn’t a blog post homework assignment I would happily write down my whole thoughts. However, I think I can just declare I was frustrated and disagreeable with Graham’s view on technology and how it somehow fixes the gap in income. Firstly, I do believe that the advancement in tech can benefit people in less than ideal conditions. Cleaner water, faster connection to people across the world, and more accessibility to information are some of the various ways that tech can be used to benefit people. I also believe that greater need for tech comes the greater need for more people to be educated in the basics of tech, and that education can potentially open up new job prospects. However, I do not believe that advancements in tech somehow make rich people live like the average person. Advancements in tech just means that the rich are now living like the rich but with more advanced tech that would be too overpriced for the average person. This is why it’s important to also be mindful of the effects of technological advancement. I was to see tech pushed to it best potential and used creatively, but it’s also important to keep in mind that the advancement of tech is intended to make people’s lives better. We as a society I believe don’t do as much as we think we do to limit the “wealth creators,” even though we shout vehemently against them. Making a subreddit about the problem doesn’t do much to limit their power. What would be effective is to use the advancements in tech to find ways to help others who need it, even if that tech may have come from the “wealth creators.”

Let’s face it, I believe that it’s practically everyone’s dream to retire early as some sort of millionaire and live out their life eccentrically like Tony Stark or Bruce Wayne. The only exception would be the true hacker workaholics that enjoy what they do they can’t sit still even if they went into retirement. In the end, after even looking at the high risks, commitment, and work needed for a startup to even be mildly successful, I do see the appeal in wanting to create a startup. There are ideas that people have that they want to work on and develop on their own agenda. The advantage I see in startups is that they add a sense of diversity to the tech industry, kind of like how I see multiple programming add that diversity as well. People think differently, and startups are good ways to see how people think differently to solve a particular problem or need. While I do feel I have a good amount of accumulated knowledge of tech, business, and schmoozing to work on or join a startup, I want to look honestly at my options first. Bigger companies would have more resources for me to work with and that sounds appealing. Plus, you have to have a product that solves a specific customer demographic’s want or problem. I don’t currently have an idea that I’d feel would truly take off. Just from looking at things though, I do believe that VR will start to get much more accessible and useful in the coming years, and I don’t mean just for video games. Shopping online to try clothes on, look at furniture placement in a house, chat to someone as if they were in the same room as you; all of these can be viable options for the use of VR. Limiting VR to the gamer demographic wouldn’t be the best option for the tech, but to find a way to market it to the more general customer demographic would be both useful and a better way to implement VR. This may just be me underestimating the intensity of the gamer customers, but allowing VR to be implemented into a more general, everyday implementation would be definitely be beneficial. Also, an idea that came into my mind just now is that I also figure more tech-based clothing will definitely be coming in the future.

When I first looked at the question, I decided to first write down my initial thoughts. I believed that depending on what the needed result is for a project, different programming languages would be more useful than others. So yes, in a way, the choice of programming language does matter depending on which language will output the best results when using it. However, I do understand people will have preferences in programming languages, and if someone knows how to use a language efficiently and effectively, then they should use the language they are most comfortable working with. Programming languages will get updated though, as seen through languages such as C++ get updates. So it’s hard for me to say with the large amount of languages to choose from what is exactly missing from the current set of tools. It may be easier to one day have one programming language that somehow does it all, but I find the diversity of languages to be helpful because people think in different ways when programming. One for of syntax for a programming language may fit someone’s thought process more than others. I think the future will have possibly less programming languages, but a diverse enough amount that people will have a choice. Also, I feel people will still be implementing and crafting their own programming languages, especially if the hipster mode of thought persists into the future.

Now, upon reading Paul Graham’s essays and taking more time to think about the role and choices when it comes to programming languages, I find that not much has changed for me in my views. I do feel my initial thoughts were very matter-of-fact, but now I feel I can explain my reasoning in a bit more detail. First by analyzing the statement: “programming languages are not just technology, but what programmers think in.” I find this statement about programming languages to be true, especially since programmers need a language to output what they are thinking. There was a point in one of Graham’s essays where he tells the story of the point-haired boss versus the non-mainstream programming languages. The story is intended to clarify on the point that just because something is popular, doesn’t make it good. The story for me gave a definite “stick it to the man” vibes, but I understand the point he’s getting across. He goes on to also explain even the benefits of using a non-mainstream language against other company competitors. Graham also makes fun of Java, even though he says it’s not his intention. I’ve just recently discovered how Java is sort of the butt-of-all-jokes in computer languages among hackers, and I can see how it’s pretty easy to mock. Seeing how Java is made fun of, I started really questioning if there are programming languages that are stronger and better than others. As much as I want to stand by my view that a language’s strengths depends on what the coding project is, I can see there are languages that have more flexibility and better syntax to others. However, I still feel that the better programming language is all subjective still.

When looking back on the programming languages I’ve used, I suppose I have hit the level of true hacker, seeing as my coding has been with mainstream languages, such as C++, C, C#, Javascript, and Python. For me, I’m used to these languages and have a personal bias towards C# because it’s used with the Unity engine for video games. For project 2, it will honestly be the first time I’m using a programming language that’s not considered mainstream. We plan to use Swift, which now I still feel bad for using because it’s connected to macOS, which is already a system that is viewed as mainstream and that real programmers don’t use MAC. Still, I feel like after the project I will go back to using the languages I already use. C# fits to me needs to want to better understand Unity and coding video games, so it just makes sense for me to use it. Plus, I do feel that using less mainstream languages is for a more experienced coder. I don’t feel ready or comfortable enough to switch to a new programming language. However, I want to still be open-minded, and not dismiss Swift or other non-mainstream languages. I will try more often non-mainstream languages, and if I find that I do prefer one of them, I will happily find a new replacement for my current favorite programming language.

 

There are aspects of Paul Graham’s view on hackers that I found myself agreeing with when it came to questioning how similar hackers are to painters. This view especially coincides with the hacker ethic’s view on how you can create art and beauty using a computer. However, there also lies a hipster-like view to hackers that Graham and Steven Levy seem to share. This view, while pretentious, does attribute to the point that hackers are much like artists, in that respect.

To begin, I want to first look at what views Graham has that I found compelling, which mostly came from the Hackers and Painters section of the book. Firstly, I have always found it difficult to truly determine which title fit the major more, computer science or software engineering. Graham now questions if hackers are even closer to artists, and while I agree there are aspects of artists within hackers, I don’t think that they can solely be called just artists. When Graham explains how hackers are makers, it makes sense that they are less connected to science. Science is calculated, analytical, and focused on precision and data collecting. Coding and computing doesn’t necessarily follow these aspects of science, making computer science less accurate of a title. This difference is especially prominent when looking at how the general hacker want to create code to make the world better, not just analyze code. However, I do see hacking as a mix between engineering and art. Software engineer may seem like just a fancy title, but I view it as the most accurate way to describe hackers. Art for me can be taken in various ways when it comes to creating, such as buildings are art to those in architecture for example.  Engineering can also have art in it as the engineer works hard to create their final product. Computers for engineers are like art, and coding is like art for hackers.

However, there is a view I continue to see about hackers that is similar to the modern hipster culture. While not as pretentious as Levy’s views making hackers live up to an insane standard of devotion to hacking, Graham does still have the feeling of “you-won’t-understand-us-hackers” that Levy also had when describing the hacker lifestyle. The high school life that Graham describes seems to embody that desire to be a misunderstood outcast.  My high school life was very different than the experience of high school Graham described.

Most of my high school life was spent preparing for getting into college, as if high school was a stepping stone or video game that needed to be completed. Being part of the “nerd group” or the “popular kids” didn’t matter to me because I didn’t have time to worry about my status. I hung around with the smart kids because we just so happened to like the same nerdy things, like Doctor Who, anime, manga, Supernatural, Sherlock, over-analyzing books, DC comics, Marvel, movies, video games, and just about anything else you can describe as “nerdy.” Though we had a preference to call ourselves geeks over nerds, which I still don’t really know the difference in their meanings. For me though these nerdy things are what let me connect to them, not some bond by IQ level. However, I always felt off in the group, since I didn’t feel like I was smart enough at times to hang out with them. When I started to pole-vault and hurdle, I felt like my athleticism added to me being cool, which allowed me to still hang out with them because I was the “cool athletic geek.”  In short, my high school social life had me more worried I wasn’t smart enough to hang out with the nerdy kids. Which, these fears in the end didn’t matter because I hung out with them because we became friends, not because we found ourselves as hipster outcasts. I feel there is a need for hackers to be viewed as the outcasts or the tormented. It’s similar to that of the “tortured artist.” That due to hackers focusing on their masterpiece over parties and fashion, there is this need to show that they are misunderstood. However, this doesn’t stop me from wanting to become a hacker. In fact, the way that Graham portrays and describes hackers is more appealing than Levy’s view because there is less of the exclusive feel that comes from Levy’s view. I would take the role of a misunderstood artist hacker over the elitist hacker.

There’s a sense of egotism that comes from saying that your major is computer science or engineering. Because we can understand computers and know how to code, we’re in an exclusive club makes us somehow cooler. We have more of an understanding of the world’s technological advancements and this given knowledge makes our major even valued at jobs that aren’t coding specific. I have even felt this ego boost when some of my friends who aren’t computer scientists said they needed to also learn coding because they were advised that would increase their chances for a job. They had originally laughed when I was insisting job seekers should at least learn the basics of coding because they thought it wasn’t relevant to them. Their change of perspective made me take pride in my major, but also made me think about just how much of the modern era now needs hackers and the hacker ethic. Hackers are still seen as the Hollywood stereotype, and the hacker ethic is not common knowledge. To me, with tech playing such a major role in the world today, I can’t see hacking and computing as an exclusive club for only the elite few.

The feeling I got from the descriptions of hackers from part 1 of the Hackers book seemed a lot like the modern day hipsters. They were hacking before it was cool. The “true hackers” embodied that sort of hipster-vibe through how much they seemed to pride themselves in their niche knowledge. Then the hardware hackers came long and made hacking mainstream. While there are similarities between the “hardware hackers” and “true hackers,” there is a clear difference in the two when it comes to the feeling of exclusivity. The hardware hackers brought technology to the spotlight, with one example being the Homebrew Computer Club. The club allowed for a wider dispersement of technological knowledge through meetings and discussions. The widespread diversity of hackers and hobbyist of tech allowed for an environment that let various curiosity thrive.

While I feel a majority of the hacker ethic won’t be too compromised with it becoming mainstream, I can see two points of the hacker ethic becoming difficult to follow. The first being the mistrust of authority.  Looking back though, the “true hackers” seemed to still have authoritative figure give them access to necessary software and tech. A good point brought up in class has been that the true hackers of places like MIT had access to everything they needed to hack. Not everyone though has that kind of access, and that’s what I believe the air of elitism ended up coming from. The true hackers had exclusive access to computers and necessary tech advancement. Anyone without that access would find it very difficult to enter this “elite true hackers club.” The authority that exists in this case is now the corporate entities like tech companies that now mass distribute computers and tech to the average person. The hackers have become an entity that the hacker ethic says to mistrust. This leads to the second point that would be difficult for the mainstreaming of the hacker ethic: allowing all information to be free. Companies keep secrets and information about how they construct their products, making how they built their computers and how they solved and used code. This is a major aspect of the hacker ethic being violated, but sadly something that just has to be accepted.

Lee Felsenstein says that technology can be a force for good, and I agree with that belief. However, I also see Efrem Lipkin view that tech can be a dangerous tool of oppression. It all depends on how the tech is used and if it’s used for the betterment of life. Technology is a basic part of modern day life, and it can’t simply be ignored or allowed for only a few to utilize and understand it. So instead of trying to deny that technology is spreading in such a way anyone can have access to it, the solution is to teach people how to use it properly. It may not be the original hacker ethic, but perhaps a new, more detailed, form of the hacker ethic should be established for the modern day hacker.

The first time I heard the word “hacker” it was used by the granddaughter in the movie Jurassic Park to describe the fact this she was a computer buff and understood technology. This “Chekov’s Gun” of a point reveals itself as she apparently breaks into the system to lock the velociraptors out. Since then, most of my experiences with the word “hacker” being used is through movies and tv shows describing the tech-savvy, misunderstood outcast, justice-seeking character. Hackers was and still is for most people, a term to describe a person who can break into various forms of technology, whether it be security systems or information stored into a system. In fact, I’ve known this as the definition all my life, that I still find it somewhat difficult to think that the term doesn’t have to apply to the Hollywood stereotype of a hacker.  I find that there is a distinct difference between the hacker ethic and how Levy described actual hackers to be and act. However, I feel that the view of Levy’s “true hacker” and the Hollywood interpretation are closer than I first suspected.

To put simply, Steven Levy sees a “True Hacker” as someone who follows the hacker ethic, a set of standards and beliefs outlined to described what is of true value to a hacker. “True hackers” have a deeper understanding and connection to the machines and code they work with. The computer is not just a tool, but a machine to be treated with respect and cared for almost like a person. Hackers judge solely on other’s hacking ability, not on degrees, age, sex, or race. There should also be a mistrust in authority, all information should be free, and use hacking skills to make life and the world better. For Levy, coding was more than just a means to an end, but also a form of art and beauty. Fineness and simplicity in code that does complicated tasks can be considered beautiful itself. From what I initially read, I initially assumed that this sounded amazing. This code of conduct shows good intentions and puts coders to a higher standard of thinking. I still find this to be a good code of ethics to live by, but upon deeper analysis, I found the implementation of the “true hacker” beliefs to be, less ideal.

The hacker ethic is an almost idealistic code of beliefs that on paper it looks nice, but is utilized much differently by the people calling themselves “true hackers.” The examples that Levy gives in the book shows that “true hackers” must dedicate their lives to their work. Lack of sleep and social interactions are admired and praised. “True hackers” are solely for their coding art, and the book mocks software engineers that think about more than just their art. This view on how a hacker should live begins to look almost similar to the Hollywood counterparts when it comes to the anti-social behavior. It’s almost similar to that of modern-day fandoms and the obsession with needing to be called a “true fan.” A fan of Star Wars for example can be hated and shunned if they find the prequel movies good. They aren’t a “true fan” if they like those movies, and mocked for it. Given I also find those prequels to be bad, but I don’t think that this should take away from a person being a fan of Star Wars. Similarly, a computer scientist may not be considered a “true hacker” if they value sleep or family more than their code. In the end, I want to be a hacker that follows the hacker ethics and not take the beliefs to the extreme. There should be a balance in the life of a hacker, one that also values their own health and well-being. No where in the hacker ethics do I see that a “true hacker” should value their art over their own life. Levy may not consider me a “true hacker,” but I don’t believe I need the recognition of those who consider themselves “true hackers” to be a hacker. If follow the hacker ethics, then I’m a hacker, it shouldn’t be that complicated.