Hackers in the Bazaar "blog" posts đ
Wow, this reading was sweaty. There were way too many people and companies with such similar names for me to keep track of. Thatâs not to say I actually did keep track of them all, mind you. That aside, however, this reading dove deep into hardware-type hackers, a second generation of harbingers for the hacker ethic. But thereâs an immediate difference between these hackers and the ones back at MIT. These hackers were open-minded, and had the goal of spreading their ideal while dissipating the âelitism and ⌠mysticism, that surrounds the world of technology.â MIT hackers? They radiated some of what hardware hackers wanted to dispel. Despite this and how MIT hackers locked themselves into their small community, viewed as mysterious or even threatening to the outside world, the main tenets of the hacker ethic introduced at the start of this book remained intact.
The two most important tenets of the hacker ethic that I believe were highlighted the most for hardware hackers was the Hands-On Imperative and the free-flow of information⌠well, I guess, for a time. For a time, Lee Felsenstein participated in a group known as Resource One, whose goal was to fulfill the previously mentioned quote. While sounding quite good, itâs really all they had. Members of the group, instead of just doing something and getting a start on their ambitions, would discuss it in excess, even argue, and nothing would follow. Resource One had a Hulking Giant, and before anyone could use it, they would have to justify it beforehand. MIT hackers would have instantly labeled them all losers, pushing them to the side and starting to hack. Lee would have actually agreed, as he went insane witnessing the other members âargu[ing] about how the machine should be used instead of throwing back the sheets and using it.â This isnât to say that the two groups of hackers were besties, though. An example, it seemed there was more a rivalry about whose differences in the ethic were superior, rather than a mutual respect for adhering to it. I refer to âdifferencesâ as the elitism so potent in the MIT AI lab, contrast to the open-arms the Homebrew Computer Club would offer.
The Homebrew Computer Club. Though arguably one of the least intimidating groups someone could be a part of, Iâd probably still be too intimidated to go. This was a community which further exhibited the Hands-On Imperative, as well as the free-flow of information. Some would be sharing the most recent hack theyâve put together, while the others would watch and adopt in delight. Discussions would follow: members would ask each other how they did this or that; others would offer ideas or advice. In the end, it was all a free exchange of information. There was nothing to lose, and so much to gain. This free exchange extended to things that could have been given out at a price, but it didnât (for a time). âThey still held to the Hacker Ethic that sublimated possession and selfishness in favor of the common good,â as Steve Dompier lent his beloved Altair to Marsh and Ingram.
Soon came commercialization. More and more people started to realize how much of an effect computers (and what they were specifically doing) could have on the market if they were to start transforming their creations into products. After Jim Warrenâs very first iteration of the Computer Faire, things were set in stone. The world was genuinely hungry for computers, and the scene transitioned from collaborative to competitive. The Homebrew Computer Club started to die down a bit, since people were now more hesitant to share their company secrets with others and found nothing to gain by going to a meeting filled with only those who wanted to keep their secrets. With the once utopianâor should I say, communistâsociety no longer what it used to be, you might think that the hacker ethic had met its demise. To me, part of that is true, even looking present-day at how our society coexists with computers. There was no more perfect ideal of the hacker ethicâs free-flow of information, and I personally believe that thatâs fine. It was the price to pay for computers to become widespread to the world. More importantly, it still exists (open source!).
Long story short, the movement into a hacker age more reliant on commercialization was worth. The motivation of money is something I can more easily relate to, and the fact that it was analogous to spreading the hacker ethic effectively to the world is an added benefit.