"And yet a great many of our institutions are set up to discourage, distract, destroy and derail the making of anything." This may not be obvious to everyone w

"And yet a great many of our institutions are set up to discourage, distract, destroy and derail the making of anything." This may not be obvious to everyone writing software. Or maybe authors today just do not care. They are too busy chasing users. As for the later some who would call themselves "hackers", I wonder: Did the original "hackers" from whence the term was taken have such ambivalence and accept what was made for them (including "platforms") fully knowing that it meant lock-in? Thwarting "hackers" from making things for themselves may not always be obvious today because in fact some of these "institutions" are set up by organizations who desperately need developer contributions. As long as they can take the contributions and use them to generate revenue or mindshare for the organization, they appear to be encouraging people to make things... but only if authors agree to jump through hoop after hoop. "Instituition": Want access to our pool of end users? Jump! Today's so-called "hacker": How high? But what if the "hacker" does not plan to share his program with end users? What if he is writing it only for himself? What is the purpose of making such an author jump through any hoops? How does that serve the author in any way?