Don't leave Dex.. who will I have left to pick on?Dex wrote:Your right i will leave
Hmm? What does that mean? It doesn't make any sense...."It is you are not your"?Brynet-Inc wrote:(BTW - It's you're not your...)
It's so very hard to comprehend me...This is covered in the Hacker Ethic.pcmattman wrote:I've been thinking recently, is hacking wrong? There are some sites on the internet (HackThisSite.org that give you opportunities to hack with their permission, which IMHO isn't wrong. But is it wrong to hack someone else's computer, without them knowing? What if you're hacking a criminal?
This is all hypothetical and all, but it should make for good discussion.
from The Jargon Fileshacker ethic: n.
1. The belief that information-sharing is a powerful positive good, and that it is an ethical duty of hackers to share their expertise by writing open-source code and facilitating access to information and to computing resources wherever possible.
2. The belief that system-cracking for fun and exploration is ethically OK as long as the cracker commits no theft, vandalism, or breach of confidentiality.
Both of these normative ethical principles are widely, but by no means universally, accepted among hackers. Most hackers subscribe to the hacker ethic in sense 1, and many act on it by writing and giving away open-source software. A few go further and assert that all information should be free and any proprietary control of it is bad; this is the philosophy behind the GNU project.
Sense 2 is more controversial: some people consider the act of cracking itself to be unethical, like breaking and entering. But the belief that ‘ethical’ cracking excludes destruction at least moderates the behavior of people who see themselves as ‘benign’ crackers (see also samurai, gray hat). On this view, it may be one of the highest forms of hackerly courtesy to (a) break into a system, and then (b) explain to the sysop, preferably by email from a superuser account, exactly how it was done and how the hole can be plugged — acting as an unpaid (and unsolicited) tiger team.
The most reliable manifestation of either version of the hacker ethic is that almost all hackers are actively willing to share technical tricks, software, and (where possible) computing resources with other hackers. Huge cooperative networks such as Usenet, FidoNet and the Internet itself can function without central control because of this trait; they both rely on and reinforce a sense of community that may be hackerdom's most valuable intangible asset.
Cracking is not about harassing or spamming.Well, writing those spambots could be also taken as cracking: making a killingly effort to make a program capable of reading deformed text images and posting and even replying rudimentarily and building up working source code. That could be used for something more useful like managing automatically a source code repository and ordering it, and many more things.
Cracked code is not synonymous to buggy code.I think also that there can't be hacking without cracking. Why? Because when you hack many times you need to go into trial and error, breaking here and then learning from your correct points as well as from you errors. After that, you can build up a custom working base for the many miscellaneous topics that give shape to an engineering piece.
Testing is legal, cracking is not.It's really not very complicated in these terms, it's just the way things are. Just like the OS testing example, if I don't try to crack with cruelty my own creations I will never know which are their rupture points to fix them even before releasing them. I am convinced that a hacker is very capable of this, and much more.
How can be called the effort itself of making such software? Hacking? Regular programming?Combuster wrote:About the usage of cracking:Cracking is not about harassing or spamming.Well, writing those spambots could be also taken as cracking: making a killingly effort to make a program capable of reading deformed text images and posting and even replying rudimentarily and building up working source code. That could be used for something more useful like managing automatically a source code repository and ordering it, and many more things.
I didn't mean to make a reference to buggy code due to a trial and error process. I'd altogether call it "design stage", "debug phase" or "update process" instead of making any reference to hacking/cracking.Combuster wrote:Cracked code is not synonymous to buggy code.I think also that there can't be hacking without cracking. Why? Because when you hack many times you need to go into trial and error, breaking here and then learning from your correct points as well as from you errors. After that, you can build up a custom working base for the many miscellaneous topics that give shape to an engineering piece.
I think there can - like I said testing is not cracking even though the methods involved may be similar.I think also that there can't be hacking without cracking.
Such a simple time, if only we new how to maintain meanings. I could be hacker! One who hires horses obviouslyWikipedia wrote:1393 (at the latest): the word had also acquired the meaning of a horse for hire and also "prostitute".
Tyler wrote:Hmm... eric also believes we should go around wearing badges with his "Hacker Emblem" in order to show support for a culture he doesn't realise he had no part in... So i don't think we can listen to the Jargon File much anymore
Code: Select all
THE JARGON FILE 2009
Sorry, I am too damn awesome and important to the open source community to continue maintaining this. Meanwhile, please see http://catb.org/~esr/guns-rule-woo.html