Reading 03: Gamers Rise Up

I think it’s plainly clear that the Hacker Ethic cannot truly and fully survive in a world of commercial and proprietary software. As we’ve seen in the previous chapter, many hardware hackers found themselves unable to continue to freely spread information once they joined or created their own companies. Even though some of the early video game companies shared information amongst themselves in order to help create better products, this behavior was limited only to those companies and larger companies (like Atari) had the opposite behavior, and tried to keep as much information hidden as possible. In addition, these companies would pursue litigation against the smaller, hacker owned companies. Over time, the hacker companies would eventually be forced to compete like larger companies did, both as the market evolved and as the hackers become more divorced from their roots, either over time or with an influx of new management (we saw the same thing happen with Apple with Wozniak leaving).


I think this was inevitable as computers and computer services became more commercialized. The influx of money brings in people who are not necessarily interested in computers because they are computers, but who are interested because of the money they can make. Even if they are interested in computers, the allure of money draws people away from the idealism that they hold, given the society we live in. While there are some hackers who are still interested in hacking for the sake of hacking, increasingly many of those in the industry are just interested in whatever will increase their total compensation (TC). If you look on reddit or TeamBlind you will see a flood of questions asking about how to get into a FAANG because of how much these companies pay. You’ll see people ask if they should go into ML or DevOps or cybersecurity based on projected salary and job growth in those subfields. If you look at Notre Dame, roughly half of our CS graduates go into consulting and not into pure software engineering. While we are an outlier, having talked to people from other schools while interviewing, even in very selective schools like CalTech people are still far more interested in having a higher TC rather than necessarily hacking for the sake of hacking.

However, it’s hard to say how big of a problem this is, if at all. If we look at game hackers compared to previous generations of hackers, they are far more focused on making money, while still adhering to parts of the hacker ethic. Similarly, programmers today, even if they are focused on money still often contribute to open source projects, and do help share information (thanks StackOverflow!). If we think of “professional programmers” versus “hacker spirited” programmers, we need to realize that the vast majority of hackers are not one or the other. Sure, it would be great if we could all abide by the hacker ethic, but that simply isn’t feasible. And even if we did, there’s no guarantee we could accomplish the great things that we accomplish now - look at how MIT hackers felt when they saw the progress that NASA made despite not programming like the hackers did. I think that for society, it would be best to have “professional programmers”, even if we want “hacker spirited” programmers because we agree with their ideals.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reading 04: Programming is an art (Donald Knuth approved!)

Paul Graham sees hacking (and by extension hackers) as closer to an artform than anything else. Paul describes hackers as makers, people who are creating something beautiful, not necessarily something new and original, but something beautiful whether in output or in design. I believe his definition is compatible and in fact fits in very well with Levy’s description of hackers. The hacker ethic even mentions that computers can be used for art and beauty! Additionally, from the stories we have read of early hackers trying to impress other hackers through code shaving to tales of hackers choosing to program an astronomically accurate star chart for the background of a game, we can see that beauty has been part of hacking since it’s very beginning. There are certainly diminishing returns to code shaving - once you’ve reached the point where you are spending hours upon hours to try and shave off a line or two of code, you’re wasting your time if you purely think of your efforts as being to...
Read more

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 fo...
Read more

Reading 09: Open source? Sounds communist to me

Open source can still make business sense today, even if it isn’t necessarily the most profitable choice (by %). As ESR has mentioned, by providing software for free, you can increase your market share more than proprietary software, and then sell add-ons / support / premium versions of the software in order to monetize the open source software. I think another element in favor of releasing open source software is the potential for it to be widely used by developers, who then encourage their companies to use it (and their companies will pay for an enterprise license / support). I believe winRAR used a similar model of selling, since it allowed users to use the free version of it indefinitely even though it warned them that they would have to buy a copy of it eventually (albeit not being an open source piece of software). I think that services instead of software as a business model is definitely a viable model, potentially even more viable than the traditional model of simply ...
Read more