Reading 02: ABC Always Be Selling out

 

In this week's reading and discussion, we learned about the second wave of hackers, who were more focused on hardware than just software. These hackers were of a very different type than the hackers who were shaped by the culture of the RLE lab. While the first hackers were systems hackers, who were obsessed far more with the software they could make on the hardware they had, the second wave hardware hackers were very interested in building their own computers, especially with the rise of microprocessors. While they both emphasized the importance of the Hacker Ethic and the hands-on imperative, the main difference was that software was not the end all be all for these hackers. They did write and give away programs for free (at least, in the beginning they did), but they also focused on building their own computers and increasing their performance. The fun for these hackers was often in the actual construction of the machine and knowing why it worked, which was not as important for MIT hackers.

What I found interesting was how much more politically charged hardware hackers were than MIT hackers. While MIT hackers were generally apolitical, or at the very least prioritized hacking over politics, for many hardware hackers politics and activism was as important if not more so than hacking. I think some of this has to do with the fact that hardware hackers were especially concentrated in southern California, which has had many liberal activists historically, compared to MIT in Boston. Many important hardware hackers wanted to make computing available to the masses, especially Lee Felsenstein through the Community Memory project at Berkeley. Through this Lee wanted to make it possible for anyone to access a computer and to reduce the fear and clear the misconceptions people had about computers and hackers that caused them to be feared and disliked in the mainstream.

This project was eventually made obsolete through the personal computer revolution, in which personal computers were sold preassembled, which allowed for the common person to have access to a computer for the first time. This coincided with many hardware hackers founding their own companies or going to work for other hacker owned companies, and while some attempted to maintain the Hacker ethic even as they owned companies, increasingly many hardware hackers of the Homebrew Computer Club were unable to participate or contribute in meetings, or to even attend because of the companies that they now owned. In doing so, Hackers made computers far more available and able to change peoples lives, at the cost of not being able to keep information free, and being under a centralized authority.

I think that this was a reasonable compromise to make. Just as the MIT hackers saw that one hacker working alone on a program was inferior to the “human wave” system NASA used, keeping computers limited to a small audience in the hopes that eventually the rest of the culture would change to fit the Hacker ethic was a pipe dream. Now, everyone has access to a computer, and the world of open source software is still strong, even if it is small in terms of users. Although a lot of software is not freely available, there are many alternatives that are, and ways to get out of the centralized environment that many users are in. Downloading Linux and committing to the use of free and open source software is an opportunity allowed to anyone, and so living through the entirety of the Hacker ethic is possible. The problem now is that it is simply too difficult to do so, especially for less technologically literate users. In the future, the Hacker ethic can be more fully realized by all.

It’s for these reasons that I believe it is best to compromise on some ideals of the Hacker ethic. Now that computers are widespread, it is possible to try to lobby for and push the Hacker ethic in an easier manner than would be done by some hackers at MIT who would have no influence on mainstream culture.