On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 21:03:58 -0400, kelley wrote: > >> so why focus on open source? > > i am not and never have. my first comment in this entire thread > was about "geeks". my next comment, the one that pissed everyone > off was an oblique reference to the war between stallmand and > raymond's vision of "open source". this is what happens when you come into the middle of a conversation. i thought you were asserting that the open source movement was going to professionalize... the comment you made that i was focused on was about hackers/coders being self-interested (as opposed to those who employed them, about which i don't give a shit), and how the hacker ethos was mercurial. there is some interest among some of the older, industrialized companies to "professionalize" their it departments. as carrol stated, this emphasis comes from the hr departments more than by the people in it... >> why not pay attention to the longer, larger, more mature processes >> of the ietf or the history of free software -- and judge the >> hacker ethos from *them* (and not raymond's ego)? > > i'm not judging hacker's or coders or geeks. i don't give a flying > fuck whether they do what they do because they are bored or lonely > or psychotic or totally in love with code or selfless or > egotistical. i'm talking about the conditions under which > occupations move to professionalize. i'm pointing to the > conditions that i believe make the occupation ripe for > professionalization and it will be more so when the economy slows > because the so-called monopoly on knowledge is not special. if this was *your* emphasis, then we have been talking about different things. i don't care if the small number of people working in it departments in the major corporations "professionalize." the make up a very small percentage of geeks, an even smaller percentage of hackers and a much smaller percentage of coders. i can't see the possibility of open source, free software or distributed workers going "professional" at all. but i agree that this tendency exists for the apparently small percentage of geeks, hackers and coders as you describe. and, again, since it affects so few of the geeks, hackers and coders in the world, i can't imagine that it matters much... > capitalists and their managerial lackeys will NOT put up with > attitudes like those expressed by people who think they can extort > capitalists. now, see, kel, i would think that "lefties" would have a natural affinity for the hacker ethos... > they don't like it. no one does. capitalists, however, have the > power, money, resources, and such to control things a lot more than > geeks. therefore, if geeks want to fight to retain the good life > they've achieved, they will have to organize. which: a.) is contrary to the very individualist nature of hackers and coders. b.) since they are widely dispersed and largely invisible, this might prove difficult, and c.) since many -- perhaps even most -- of them are neither as well-off as you assume and work for smaller employers that are traditionally *not* organized by unions, this seems difficult at best... > as i said, all major associations affiliated with IT have had the > professionalization discussion for at least a decade now. > > that is why you haven't been reading what i'm writing. no, i have been focused on the things that i cared about, and responding to them. if they were tangential to your argument, then why go postal? like i said above, i have no problem with professionalization of the small percentage of geeks, hackers and coders of which you seem to be discussing. minor elements of groups always move in contrary directions to the forces at hand... but that explains why you didn't think i "attended to" anything you wrote, because i don't care about the professionalization of the it departments of major corporations. i was talking about geeks, hackers and coders. we were focused on completely different populations... > it's not about you and yours. however much you'd like to be the > center of attention. that's simply not what i do as a > sociologist. and, moreover, i'm not writing a book or article or > anything. it was just a post to a flippin' list exploring an > idea. to which you seem to have a problem with dissenting views... On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 05:42:03 -0400 (EDT), Matt Cramer wrote: > >> i'm not judging hacker's or coders or geeks. i don't give a >> flying fuck whether they do what they do because they are bored or >> lonely or psychotic or totally in love with code or selfless or >> egotistical. i'm talking about the conditions under which >> occupations move to professionalize. i'm pointing to the >> conditions that i believe make the occupation ripe for >> professionalization and it will be more so when the economy slows >> because the so-called monopoly on knowledge is not special. even >> physicians cannot muster such a monopoly and they hold people's >> lives in their hands. how do you suppose it has happened that >> they are increasingly under the thumb of accountants who tell them >> how to practice their trade? >> >> capitalists and their managerial lackeys will NOT put up with >> attitudes like those expressed by people who think they can extort >> capitalists. they don't like it. no one does,. capitalists, >> however, have the power, money, resources, and such to control >> things a lot more than geeks. therefore, if geeks want to fight >> to retain the good life they've achieved, they will have to >> organize. as i said, all major associations affiliated with IT >> have had the professionalization discussion for at least a decade >> now. > > What about the de-professionalization of the workplace, attributed > to the hacker. Take something simple like dress code. I work for > an ancient manufacturing company. Very "old school", powerful old > men in expensive dark suits running things, etc. Two years ago > they instituted a new dress code, business casual all year. Do you > think this had anything to do with losing sales talent to > competitors without dress codes? Of course not, this is hackerdom > breaking the rules, and the company changing the rules. an example of how the whole world will go hacker... > A simple example of course, but it illustrates how the world is > changing in subtle ways. the old rules no longer apply... > You forwarded the post from Sinster, and the reactions here are as I > expected. Hackers aren't going to organise their labour because we > don't organise anything, well, except for coffee wars... > we are agents of disorganisation. As Woodchuck wrote (if you've > never read his rant about "what it is to be a hacker" then please > ask him for it) we are the chaotic elements, the Markoff Chaneys in > this world. I believe you, surprisingly, are failing to see the > giant distinction between a code monkey and a hacker. The code > monkeys SHOULD organise, if they want to keep their fat salaries, > because you are damn right this boom is going to recede. which is the same thing as i said above. they are *not* the majority of geeks, hackers or coders. they are the exceptions, the hybrids. > But those aren't the hackers, they're the ankle biters, and that's > fine, someone has to sit in a cube all day and write code for some > random object used in the next SAP or Peoplesoft, but that isn't > me, no thanks. indeed. me neither. or no one i know... > Bang, now I'm sure your thinking "there he goes again with the us > vs. them, proving my point", right? The difference between what > I'm doing and what you think I'm doing is that I'm only recognizing > a distinction, not enforcing one. Anyone, everyone should be a > hacker, and ac has said that better than I can. That's the point. > Newbie flames on dc-stuff are not as significant as I think you > make them out to be - newbie flames are a tradition, as are > clueless flames. dc-stuff has answered and continues to answer > technical questions in our flamboyant style. one of the things that i meant to say before (not like i haven't said enough) is that while "how do i become a hacker" questions are *not* answered on dc-stuff or cypherpunks, that question is responded to in other, more *technical* hacker forums. not much more than a week ago that question was posed and answered on the pen-test list. never forget that dc-stuff (and apparently cypherpunks) is a monitored list. things written there are being used against people and taken before grand juries. it is prolly not much of a surprise that that question is treated in the way that it is by that forum... > Ac and I both have physics degrees, and I think that is the norm > amongst hackers. Not physics degrees of course, but any degree > EXCEPT a comp sci degree, if a degree at all. I have no > professional certifications, those are for the code monkeys and the > microserfs, because they need them to professionalize, as you would > call it, and seperate themselves from the totally clueless, so as > to command that high salary. But those aren't the hackers, the > hackers are few and far between in the corporate world. My > company has three people that I would say are hackers, out of an IT > staff of hundreds. We DON'T command the highest salaries but we do > have a HUGE influence over the technical direction of the company. a common question that circulated a few years ago at comdex was "where do you put your linux server?" you could tell the size of the company someone worked for by whether or not they responded, "in the closet..." > This isn't strictly a matter of pure knowledge it is a matter of > understanding the tools and having programmed our brains to use the > tools to their maximum benefit. iow, we know how to think... > My only disclaimer is that becoming a hacker has no prerequisits, > no criteria, no credentials. It is a state of mind, an attitude, > and almost a way of life. It is a kind of auto-programming of the > mind, and it can't be taught in a school or simply read about in a > book. much, if not most, of that applies to geeks as well. On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 13:37:51 -0400, kelley wrote: > > >> If employment in your field is not so great where you live then >> organise - I wasn't objecting to the notion of organised labour in >> technical fields just that when Kelley says that we are all, >> including hackers, going to have to do it I disagree because I >> know damn well we don't organise well, and we won't have to. > > *professionalize* BIG difference. professionalizing will simply > be a way for y'all to separate the shit from the pony, to protect > your good name from that of the script kiddie and ankle biter, so > an employer can say, "ok, i'll hire this guy b/c he's a > "professional" (signified by a degree or some test you've taken, > one which includes command of a code of professional ethics (like > not damaging company data or using your access to that info to > extrot them) and that if you do something like that you'll be > disbarred and shamed among your peers. grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. just when i think you have isolated your discussion to what matt calls the code monkeys, there you go again! disgruntled employees already "damage company data or use their access to that info" for nefarious purposes. indeed, by some counts, 80% of network intrusions can be accounted for by insiders, not "hackers." hackers are explorers, not destroyers. the hacker ethos commands that a real hacker "only use the power" for knowledge -- so companies large or small have *nothing* to fear from the hacker. moreover, hackers don't really have a good name anymore. not much to protect. i can't see professionalization occuring at anything other than the old, mainline companies. most geeks, hackers and coders are working for newer, smaller companies in much less formalized environments (like you), where professionalization isn't really appropriate... > like y'all shame carolyn meinel, john vranesivich (sp?) script > kiddies and so forth now but you do so informally, through the > grapevine. well, both cpm and vranesich are dangerous. they need to be ostrasized. they want to retrofit hackers into the traditional global framework -- to their own benefit, i might add... > employers are going to want that protection and they aren't going > to want to give up their networks to people they don't know if they > can trust. so the pressure will be on. nope. they will just have to adjust to the brave new world, just like everyone else. if you have a secret, then don't put it online. oh, you want to do business online? well, then, you will have to accept an invasion of privacy. what makes you think that they have the right to take away your privacy but you don't have the right to take away theirs? they controlled the tools and access before; they *don't* any longer. companies are just gonna have to deal with their loss of power, just like governments. or stay offline... ac ''' (0 0) ----oOO----(_)---------- | the geek shall | | inherit the earth | -----------------oOO---- |__|__| || || ooO Ooo ------------------------------------------------------------ AUSI.COM at http://ausi.com for FREE EMAIL, News, OLYMPICS, info about AUSTRALIA