> dickslinging here, i'm arguing, is simply part of a wider cultural process
> that has little to do with men and everything to do with power. (yes, i
> was being hyperbolic, not unlike the man you worship, in order to get a
> little action going!). i am arguing that, in some ways, sharing code,
> collectively working on projects, and making it freely available is a form
> of 'check out how great i am and how great we are for being different and
> against the grain" dick slinging.
"in some ways" is a far cry from "all about". Back-peddle to this, and you get no argument from me. We've also moved discussion from "open-source developers" to hackerdom, and they are not identical (although using the 'traditional' definition of hacker all open source types are hackers, but not the other way around).
> >I think I mildly flamed you once for incessant name dropping on dc-stuff.
> >Name dropping is a kind of dick^H^H^H^Hclitoris slinging. :-)
>
> (old list joke and poke at yoshie who once told me i was rude and liked to
> fondle the lesbian phallus in order to legitimate my rudeness)
>
> yes, i agree that it certainly could be that i'm dickslinging when i name
> drop.
>
> but hey wot! hang on a sec! lemme respond like you guys to that. in that
> case the rant would go like so:
[snip rebuttal]
I was just teasing.
[snip story of snit sharing info about her specialty]
> reese thoguth it was odd b/c people on dc don't share their haX0r knowledge
> with others. indeed, when a newbie asked they get flamed.
>
> why the difference? why academics eagerness to share their extremely
> obscure knowledge domains. it's not that they're completely selfish or self
> interested boors. it is, rather, that a different culture or ethos can be
> observed here because we're mostly academics and this is what we
> do: spread our knowledge around rather freely. even when the goldang
> answer is available right on the internet or in a library. we ask and
> answer anyway.
>
> now, on dc stuff if someone asks a question about "hacking" what
> happens? hmmm?
>
> they get flamed, esp if the answer is available in the first 50hits of a
> google search.
>
> why do you suppose that is? what function does such a norm fulfill? what
> purpose does it serve? why is it important enough to warrant the flame
> fests in one place and not elsewhere?
>
> on a related note, why do you suppose that here at the high flamage lbo
> list have i never once been considered a hanger on scene whore just looking
> to hang out with the big shots and soak up their glory?
I wouldn't be able to say, since I don't know the details or history of this list.
> and why do you suppose that is quickly the conclusion that several drew at dc.
Well, you admitted that you were there to "study" or something. Plus your lines didn't wrap until we flamed you. :-)
> why do you suppose it is that the very same bh from me here as at dc stuff
> garners such utterly different responses.
>
> is it sexism. there be plenty of that here.
>
> NO.
>
> it's because no one covets being an academic and so you dn't have groupies
> and scene whores. (or the use of those epithets as slurs) but people DO
> want to be part of the "scene" or, rather, become part of the hacking
> world. since there are no formal credentializing processes as yet to do
> so, there is the trial by fire that is engaged on lists, in irc, etc.
True. Compare "our" world to that of "she-who-cannot-be-named" (Reese will tell you who I mean if you don't recall).
> >I objected to the statement 'the open source movement is all about dick
> >slinging'. That's absurd, for the reasons I mentioned.
>
>
> i'm tired of reading these siss boom bah cheerleader statements from people
> i think ought to know better. you guys at dc stuff are beyond hope. these
> guys here tho, they need some snititude. object all you want. i was being
> hyperbolic on purpose like someone we both know and love whose initials are
> dave.
There is a fine line between hyperbole and a gigantic paint brush. Note that it wasn't just Susi and I who rose to defend open source. I made salient points earlier; there is no need to repeat them.
> >But to people that use this stuff, and work on it, when you say "open
> >source" we don't think Back Orifice, we think Samba. Or something like
> >Venema and Farmer's CTK (Coroner's Toolkit). If it requires slinging
> >dick to explain the purpose of these efforts, then I'm guilty wrt that,
> >but only because I don't think I can explain it any other way.
>
>
> nopers. it's not about that. i'm saying that i think its wrong to
> valorize the "sharing" aspect of the work culture. no human activities are
> ever that pure.
Careful, though. Who does the valorizing? A lot of it comes from outside, especially the media. Yes there are media-whores in hackerdom (and media whores in the scene whores, the vilist of the vile). But I think it is a mischaracterization to say that hackerdom and its manifestation in open-source is saying "look at us, we are so different than the rest of the world, we are so special, we like to share". I can't recall anyone talking about open-source as some kind of revolution to the world per se, in fact it is usually the opposite. "Open source software is bringing the collabortative practices found in academia to the art/function of writing and distributing software". That's more like it. The revolution, if you will, is not outside the software 'field', or, it can be said to follow other other info-sharing fields, like academia. But in terms of the software field, it is a kind of revolution against behemoths like Micro$oft, etc. A revolution in terms of the last 30 years of software "progress". There is a context at work, even if it is unspoken. I don't think any open-source developer thinks his software his going to end famine and poverty, or something.
Even a zealot for the cause (the "linux is the perfect OS, even for your grandma who doesn't know how to plug in her computer" types) is still operating within that context. Open-source is revolutionary, especially to M$. They DO NOT know how to deal with it. The practice of FUD doesn't really work, although they are trying it. But that's the best they can come up with. Linux doesn't "play fair" as far as M$ is concerned; and the internet, which M$ purposely ignored until about 1996-7, the thing that has become ubiquitous with technology in general, runs more free software than NT. A "product" freely distributed, owned by noone, and directly controlled by the workers, is currently beating the #1 capitalist empire in the field, the one guilty of multitudes of unethical practices, the one owned by the world's richest man, in the most popular, fastest growing market in the world. That has to warm some leftist cockles! Sis Boom Bah, Indeed!
> but what i'm getting at is that this was my way of entering into a
> discussion that i've been tossing ard for abt 6 months and that is my
> observations of this intense political struggle over things like what is a
> hacker? are white hat hackers really hackers? is open source the fulcrum
> of the revolution? is it socialist or libertarian or what? etc.
You don't ask for much, do you? :-)
Matt
-- Matt Cramer <cramer at voicenet.com> http://www.voicenet.com/~cramer/ Theoretically, people see money on the counter, and no one around, they think they're being watched.
-Dante Hicks Honesty through paranoia.
-Veronica