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
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
