Reading03

The nature of hackers has changed throughout the years. Initially, the True “Obsessed” Hackers from MIT, were focussed on the exploration of the computer. They were driven by their need to learn and understand the ins and outs of the computer. The Hardware “Educational” Hackers from the West, centered their mission around expanding the computing world. They wanted any and everybody to share their passion and deep understanding of computers.  Finally, these Game “Greedy” Hackers, whose sole purpose was to get more, created the commercialized software and gaming industry for the general public. I almost feel as though this group was more disgusting than the Junkies of MIT. Each group did have passion, love, and curiosity for computing but the way it was utilized was different. 

As the industry shifted to software and game development they also were introduced to the business world. Business + any new/interesting development = commercialization, and this is when in my opinion things got bad at least in terms of Ken Williams’ On-Line. Williams and the way he ran his company was for his greed, even he admitted it. While he did want people to enjoy the new games in general, he focused on being at the top.” I don’t care if anybody gets rich,” said Ken, “as long as I get richer.” In class we talked about how greed is different because it is not necessarily a want for yourself, but a want for yourself and less for others. Williams was a great example of this by prioritizing profit over friendships, as seen in his implementation of the $10,000-friend rule at On-Line. The $10,000 rule said that Williams was willing to get rid of friendships if they prevented him from making $10,000 or more by taking too long to develop a game and other software/products. Many third-generation programmers shared similar thinking that designing and game creation brought excitement but the financial rewards and fame are exciting too.

 A big theme was commercialization. I feel like when things are commercialized there are overt differences in what is being put out. When things became commercialized, the common folk did not care much about the intricacies of how it worked which led to hackers doing the bare minimum and still succeeding in the industry. This shift diminished the Hacker Ethic of deep innovation and creation. These hackers wanted money, so it was almost as if they became lazy and only did the bare minimum because that would get them money. There was a time when Williams would meet with other companies and discuss plans to ensure no one was stepping on the other companies’ toes. However, with this focus on profit, that ended and there was a push for securing and not sharing information which completely contradicts the hacker ethic policy of all information being free. Technology was created to prevent fraud and payment was necessary for the game and software to be obtained. 

In my opinion, I don’t think the hacker ethic could fully survive in commercial software. We have already seen the effects the industry has had on the hacker ethic including a lack of privacy and the indirect promotion of laziness. The hacker ethic that is used in the software industry is not the same as before. While some aspects remain the same, things have changed and I am worried that they are irreversible because people got and continue to get comfortable with the money coming in. 

This industry was fast-paced, one minute you made the best game ever, and then the next there was something else that people were drawn to. I think that it is important to note the impact this industry had on its customers. Although it was not explicitly stated I feel like many would agree with my hypothesis that there is a change in attention span. Games were being put out like crazy and people always wanted the new thing, so they also may not have gotten a chance to take it in. Everything was moving fast and today, some things are almost instant. I wouldn’t say that it is anyone’s responsibility, but someone should have noticed. I think there should be both responsible engineers and those who just love hacking. One is not better than the other because they both lack in different areas, but together I think they can complement each other well. I know that it is the cop-out answer but it is true. 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reading 01

     When I think of a hacker, I think of someone, of course with their hood up in a dark room breaking into something, but I also think of someone extremely intelligent and innovative in their work. For example, Henry Ford said, “If I would have asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses”. If it were me, initially I would have been trying to get the poor horses on steroids in hopes that they would become faster, but Henry Ford created a car.  A hacker to me is someone who can positively and or negatively innovate to impact someone else.       After reading, my perception changed of what a hacker was it became more negative. Initially, I felt as though the MIT hackers were selfish. The book depicted their sole purpose to find out information for themselves and satisfy their curiosity’s hunger. There was no mention of helping people outside of their group. It gave the impression that even if you were in the group you were in there because someone else found you us
Read more

Reading02

To remind myself, the hacker ethic is: Access to computers—and anything which might teach you something about the way the world works—should be unlimited and total. Always yield to the Hands-On Imperative, all information should be free, Mistrust authority—promote decentralization hackers should be judged by their hacking, not criteria such as degrees, age, race, sex, or position,You can create art and beauty on a computer, and Computers can change your life for the better. (from Prof. Bui's slides, thank you!) While reading I was thinking about the idea of intention vs reality. On paper, ideas and solutions sound great, but do they transfer over when put into practice? There was a distinct difference between the hardware hackers from California and the True hackers from MIT: a willingness to share information with everyone, not just those within their circle. I agree with the group and their mission to help the community and dissipate the aura of elitism. I feel as though people s
Read more

Reading05

     This is way above my pay grade, so please take everything I say lightly. I was surprised to hear how big an impact LISP made on what many would consider today’s ‘need to know’ languages like Python and Java. After reading these essays, the first thing that came to mind was power vs popularity. LISP was created in the late 50s, yet according to the reading, LISP shares many of the main features of Python and Java with additional exclusive features. LISP had the power, yet Python and Java are more popular at least to the average person. Why don’t we just go back and use LISP, if everything is a child of LISP? Python and Java are also fairly new, so why are they used? In the last group of essays, something that I never realized was how impactful American culture has been on computing. Because programming is an American-bred and raised thing, I think it is natural for people to look at the newest thing, but how long will that last? It seems like every language is just a new trend.    
Read more