3 ms·

What happened was that ultimately people make money from business models, not technology. So, eventually, the cultural attention shifts from the the doers to th

What happened was that ultimately people make money from business models, not technology. So, eventually, the cultural attention shifts from the the doers to the sellers. And every once in a while, we have a little shift in the technological landscape, and for a second or two, a few hackers start making money and getting cultural attention. And this attention society also brings attention from sellers, who come over and make themselves at home.

forgottenpass 10y ago
So, eventually, the cultural attention shifts from the the doers to the sellers. Just a shift in attention would lead to the de-emphasis of the hacker (at least outside of infosec companies). The interesting point that you don't address is why the "hacker" moniker is bigger than ever. It wasn't a foregone conclusion. Professional software and hardware companies existed before "hacker" was thrust into the public consciousness as anything other then baddies on the news. It's not like there weren't hackers back then. Something changed, that something was branding. There is cultural cachet to be had in the "hacker" brand. And anyone that fancies themselves more hip than what they envision programming to be like at IBM or a government contractor wants in. At least until everyone figures out hacker is a meaningless term, then it's onto the next scam. For a take on how these things happen that I find much more interesting than this article: http://hotelconcierge.tumblr.com/post/134371738229/on-the-origin-of-posers http://hotelconcierge.tumblr.com/post/134371738229/on-the-or...
tylershuster 10y ago
What you're saying reminds me a lot of the Hacker Manifesto's argument about the hacker v vectorialist classes.
- WalterSear 10y ago
  I need to check that out. :)
kylec 10y ago
Was making money part of the original hacker ethos?
- WalterSear 10y ago
  No, but it makes things sustainable. For better or worse, it makes the world go round.
  - personsunknown 10y ago
    That's a cop out. The scene "sustained" itself just fine. Now people working at Facebook call themselves "hackers". It was as much about a philosophy as it was about technology. When the industry moves on to the next buzzword, we'll still be here.
    - WalterSear 10y ago
      It didn't, and doesn't, and this isn't about the names that gadflies choose for themselves. And I'm not arguing that the end of everything is to enrich oneselves (or one's masters). I'm arguing that I've worked at far too many companies that went bust, because their business model was broken, in order to fund my own hacker activities outside of that. There's just no avoiding the need to acquire resources, and organizations/movements/individuals that can do it better have a obvious and historically established survival advantage. The commoditization of technology is no exception.
      - personsunknown 10y ago
        "I'm arguing that I've worked at far too many companies that went bust, because their business model was broken, in order to fund my own hacker activities outside of that." Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you are saying that hackers can't survive because the scene can't exist without the corporations funding it's participants. This is contrary to history. In my generation the industry considered us criminals even though most of us weren't. The hacker scene was around long before the industry embraced it and will be around long after whatever unicorn of the month loses it's horn. It's not going anywhere. It constantly changes and every generation has added it's own chapter, but that's what makes it what it is. So that leads me to my next question... What could you have not done if you didn't have corporate funding from these several failed companies you worked for? What prevented you from just doing it anyways?

forgottenpass 10y ago

So, eventually, the cultural attention shifts from the the doers to the sellers. Just a shift in attention would lead to the de-emphasis of the hacker (at least outside of infosec companies). The interesting point that you don't address is why the "hacker" moniker is bigger than ever. It wasn't a foregone conclusion. Professional software and hardware companies existed before "hacker" was thrust into the public consciousness as anything other then baddies on the news. It's not like there weren't hackers back then. Something changed, that something was branding. There is cultural cachet to be had in the "hacker" brand. And anyone that fancies themselves more hip than what they envision programming to be like at IBM or a government contractor wants in. At least until everyone figures out hacker is a meaningless term, then it's onto the next scam. For a take on how these things happen that I find much more interesting than this article: http://hotelconcierge.tumblr.com/post/134371738229/on-the-origin-of-posers http://hotelconcierge.tumblr.com/post/134371738229/on-the-or...

tylershuster 10y ago

What you're saying reminds me a lot of the Hacker Manifesto's argument about the hacker v vectorialist classes.

WalterSear 10y ago
I need to check that out. :)

kylec 10y ago

Was making money part of the original hacker ethos?

WalterSear 10y ago
No, but it makes things sustainable. For better or worse, it makes the world go round.
- personsunknown 10y ago
  That's a cop out. The scene "sustained" itself just fine. Now people working at Facebook call themselves "hackers". It was as much about a philosophy as it was about technology. When the industry moves on to the next buzzword, we'll still be here.
  - WalterSear 10y ago
    It didn't, and doesn't, and this isn't about the names that gadflies choose for themselves. And I'm not arguing that the end of everything is to enrich oneselves (or one's masters). I'm arguing that I've worked at far too many companies that went bust, because their business model was broken, in order to fund my own hacker activities outside of that. There's just no avoiding the need to acquire resources, and organizations/movements/individuals that can do it better have a obvious and historically established survival advantage. The commoditization of technology is no exception.
    - personsunknown 10y ago
      "I'm arguing that I've worked at far too many companies that went bust, because their business model was broken, in order to fund my own hacker activities outside of that." Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you are saying that hackers can't survive because the scene can't exist without the corporations funding it's participants. This is contrary to history. In my generation the industry considered us criminals even though most of us weren't. The hacker scene was around long before the industry embraced it and will be around long after whatever unicorn of the month loses it's horn. It's not going anywhere. It constantly changes and every generation has added it's own chapter, but that's what makes it what it is. So that leads me to my next question... What could you have not done if you didn't have corporate funding from these several failed companies you worked for? What prevented you from just doing it anyways?