Similar to the hacker links I mentioned in hacker/Talk, I've got some "real hacker" links. In contrast to the hacker links, these are exceedingly boring web pages. These guys are so very "into" what they do that while they're famous, they don't actively do things in their community in the same sense as "regular" hackers. Unless PR is their forte (and there are some amazing real hackers who really do the public thing <i>well</I>, one will find this type slaving over something obscure (and completely necessary in the world). One tends to find a real hacker with a slew of regular hackers who are the engine behind which the real hackers work gets pushed into the world.
Anyhow.. this is a hugely huge topic that's been covered elsewhere.. I ought to go hunt down some linkage for it. -- rack
Being a Real Hacker is a very VERY big deal, and no there aren't very many of them. Relate this status to being 5th+ dan black belt.. it becomes a weighty responsability to be active in the community. A Real Hacker is to a user as a professor is to a first-year student. The title is considered revered. -- Sy
Agreed. Real Hackers are the guys who knows UNIX exeedingly well (a lot of people throw "UNIX Expert" around but its really quite rare), knows networks very well, and knows coding very well. Few people are multi-talented enough to be adept at all three areas. An outstanding coder, an OS Guru, and a sharp networking guy are rarely found in the same person.
That's something of what I would consider a prerequisite to "Real Hacker" status. Also: a talent to reverse-engineer, a level of maturity, and inside knowledge of important, even critical, systems all could be included.
For instance, I would never call someone who wrote a successful (damaging) virus like Klez a Real Hacker.
- Nope. =) Technically the definition of a Real Hacker includes concepts of community acceptance as such. Nobody can dub themselves as one, but they get labelled by another. It's wierd, yes. At any rate, there is no real definition, although there is some good writing on it.. I believe the Hacker FAQ is one which tries to elaborate on the subject. There ought to be a link under Hacker. -- Sy
- Hmm... wondering if I need another hobby besides wondering about this type of thing. -- Webfork
- There are other hobbies? ;) -- Sy
- I don't know what you mean. I don't know what the real politics of information are. Webfork
- Could the politics of information be about the how and why some people have lots of it and others dont? Could the economics of information be about the when and what of information? Its not a bad, hackerspeak its just that sometimes I see a lot a hacker self-analysis, when effort could be spend on hacking. - ABliss
- While the application of hackerspeak might be used for political purposes, it was originally made as 1) a shortcut to typing, and 2) lam0rs who wanted to feel kewl. 1 has succeeded, and 2 nicely labels its users so intelligent people can avoid interaction with them.. handy. -- Sy
- Why do we refer to it as "hackerspeak"? In the Jargon File (amongst other places) it's always "leetspeak" and used in derogatory terms. I think we have a bad trainwreck going on in our hacker-related entries. We have the 70s (RMS) hacker, who hacks UNIX. We have the 80s/90s (phreak/BBS) hacker who hacks into systems. And we have the 00s (Real Hacker) definition which is sort of like a glorified, expanded version of the 70s hacker. What may have been hackerspeak in the 70s is leetspeak now, what may have been "hackish" in the 70s is just programming nowadays... I think the whole lot needs a big overhaul, but i'm not sure how to do it. Perhaps splitting it up chronologically is a good idea.
- With regard to the original topic, ABliss, no i don't think hackerspeak has anything to do with the politics of information. It's like a second track to this Wiki, which focuses more on the types of information that exist and the people who create and share that information. I don't think BRB-style entries are related to censorship or politics. They're related to culture and community. -- Amw
I've read this line like 4 times and I can't make sense of it. Would someone please rewrite it? Webfork
> Try accusing one who calls themself a Real Hacker, even in jest, that they may be akin to a H4x0r .. and you may see that some hackers take themselves too seriously. ;) This sensitivity to criticism and lack of humour may be seen as proof that the accused is not enlightened, and therefore as an admission of guilt.