Hack - show we use a different term?

[Jefferson Kirkland]

Thank you for the welcome!

Well, wishing is one thing, actively trying to change the way the world
operates is something completely different, and personally, I don't know
anyone who would try to take on that task.  So, wishing is about as far as I
can go.  I never said it would happen though.  :-)

Personally, knowing the difference, I do use the word cracker should that
type of topic come up in conversation.  Yes, I people have attempted to
correct me, but I tell them the definition and then quickly follow it with a
"Ok, I am not going to get into a semantic argument, so here is a
dictionary!".  Its useless basically, but when in the moment its hard not to
speak what you know the truth to be.

MMMmmmmm.... crackers!

Jeff




On 7/22/07, Paul Makepeace <paulm at paulm.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/22/07, Jefferson Kirkland <numberwhun at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/22/07, Leo Lapworth <leo at cuckoo.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > The term 'Hack' is used for so many things, some of the computer
> related
> > > ones are:
> > >
> > > *"Hack* has several meanings in the technology and computer science
> > > fields:
> > > a clever or quick fix to a computer program problem; a clumsy or
> inelegant
> > > solution to a problem; illegally breaking into a computer, generally
> over
> > > a
> > > network connection; or a modification of a program or device to give
> the
> > > user access to features otherwise were unavailable to them." -
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack_%28technology%29
> > >
> > > The problem I have is whenever I speak to almost anyone not in the
> > > technology/computer field they only ever think "illegally breaking
> into a
> > > computer". I got several really confused people asking why the
> BBC/Yahoo
> > > was
> > > sponsoring breaking into computers when I said I was going to the
> > > "Hackday".
> > > I think they had images of hundreds of geeks trying to take down "the
> man"
> > > (who ever he is).
> > >
> > > Maybe it doesn't matter - but it just got to the point where I'm
> getting
> > > bored explaining it to non-techs. I'm also reading a novel which talks
> > > about
> > > 'hackers' and 'crackers' and starts defining the difference and then
> goes
> > > on
> > > to talk about a 'Whois' (yes, they had the cap W) look up taking so
> long
> > > the
> > > egg timer comes up - after having just being told that this was a
> 'shell'
> > > not a GUI - arrg - Why bother trying to explain the details if your
> going
> > > to
> > > get it wrong!
> >
> >
> >
> > First, let me start with a long distance "Hello!" to everyone as I just
> > joined this list from across the pond in the US and this is my first
> > posting.
>
> Welcome to London.pm :)
>
>
> > As for the discussion, I know exactly what you mean about having to
> > constantly explain to non-techies what the difference is between what
> the
> > actual definition and practice is compared to the media formed, hyped
> > version that they hear about every day.  I truely wish that the media
> would
> (truly)
> > get the word "hack(er)" out of their heads and apply the definition
> correct
> > term of "crack(er)" instead.  It would make all of our geek lives a
> little
> > easier.
>
> Why do you wish for this? It seems like a total waste of time. It will
> never happen. You might as well wish for the tide to stay out. I don't
> even think many geeks who use the word 'cracker' except to describe
> amongst other things a light crispy snack.
>
> P
>