Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar
From: barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: RE: Use of hacker
Message-ID: <750@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 18-Sep-83 03:23:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.750
Posted: Sun Sep 18 03:23:03 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 19-Sep-83 01:46:09 EDT
References: <2335@ncsu.UUCP>
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 22

Gary Fostel was kind enough to quote the MIT/Stanford Jargon file, but I
think he is wrong in giving in to the media because the definition they
use made it in there.  Note that the definition they use is number 6,
and definitions are ordered in dictionaries by the commonness of use.
Thus, this was a very uncommon use of the term, but it has now moved to
the top of the list because of its misuse by the media.

Please, no flames from the "but this is how languages grow" people.  I
understand that, but it is not good for a term to suddenly switch major
meanings this way.  We "true hackers" would still like to be able to use
the term without sounding like crooks.

I also don't think that the media was intending to use definition 6,
anyway, but they just lucked out.  I believe that this happened because
the "crackers" (the best of the suggested terms for them that I have
seen on the net) like to call themselves hackers (in the definition 1
sense), and the media has picked up on this and is using it for them,
too, but with the negative connotation.
-- 
			Barry Margolin
			ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
			UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar