Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1exp 10/6/83; site ihuxr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!hou5h!hou5a!hou5d!hogpc!drux3!ihnp4!ihuxr!stanwyck
From: stanwyck@ihuxr.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: "Hack" is a sacred word?
Message-ID: <731@ihuxr.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27-Oct-83 10:39:08 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxr.731
Posted: Thu Oct 27 10:39:08 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 31-Oct-83 03:43:02 EST
References: <848@mit-eddie.UUCP> <131@dual.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, Il
Lines: 23

Ok.  So why the big hassle over "hacker"?  If the rest of the world wants to
use some other meaning, and it seems it does, then we can pick another word
to express our meaning.  

Here we tend to refer to the very knowledgeable as "gurus" (singular "guru").
This is a word that could be extended to the diligent and foolish ones who
work 36 hours straight, introducing more bugs than they fix, who presently
consider themselves hackers.

Actually, my experiance has been that those who really know their machines
have no need or desire to spend 24+ hours at the keyboard.  It is only those
who are more interested in messing all the other users up that spend so many
consecutive hours at the terminal.  99.9% or more of those who spend such
lengthy periods of time at the terminal end up putting more bugs inthe system
than anything else.

So let's call the intelligent experts "gurus", and call the system breakers
(whether break-in and ruin, or ruin by bug introduction) "hackers".

                Don Stanwyck            ihnp4!ihuxr!stanwyck

p.s.  I don't consider myself either, but I am working on "guru".  I have
      no desire to be "hacker".