On Mar 13, 2014, at 12:46 PM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:45 AM, James R Cutler
> <james.cut...@consultant.com> wrote:
>> And Bill documents yet another redefinition.  Prior to that time, at MIT a 
>> "hacker" produced a novel variation of technology using it in ways not 
>> previously envisioned but not necessarily unlawful.
>> 
>> Mating two different generations of telephone keysets or reducing a complex 
>> rack mount filter to a single small circuit board with an FET or two are 
>> just a couple of examples.  One was just a "hack", the other an "elegant 
>> hack".  We just called
> 
> Hi James,
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but by the time "hacker" emerged as a word
> distinct from "hack" it already carried implications of mischief and
> disregard for the rules in addition to the original implication of
> creatively solving a technical challenge. Is that mistaken?
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin


Bill,

Mistaken? Yes.

As of early 1960’s - See history of WTBS, Ralph Zaorski, Dick Gruen, Alan Kent, 
and many others - The then current usage of “hacker” was simply one who 
produced a “hack” - an unusual or unexpected design or configuration or action 
which either did the same old thing done more simply/elegantly or which did 
something new or unexpected altogether.  Putting an Western Electric power 
plant on an Automatic Electric step-by-step for the East Campus telephone 
switch was one of my “hacks”.

James R. Cutler - james.cut...@consultant.com
PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Reply via email to