Reading06

ESR describes a cathedral a ‘carefully crafted by individual wizards … with no beta to be released before its time.’ He then mentions how the Linux community, ‘resemble[s] a great babbling bazaar or differing agendas and approaches.’ The Linux community was able to use this bazaar style and by a miracle produce Linux. In the cathedral model things seem to just be very put together. Like you know what the outcome will look like and what needs to go into this in order to have a successful output. The bazaar model just seems like a hodgepodge of things trying to come together to have a successful output.

As I’m thinking about these different coding styles I also think about an actual cathedral and a bazaar. Although, I have never been in a market in a Middle Eastern country, I have in Latin America and it is wild but amazing at the same time. When one walks into a cathedral there is a sense of reverence or stillness and silence. This is very different than a market where people are selling things, there’s talking, bargaining, and things from all over, etc. So now, going back to using that as a model of software development I can see how a bazaar would work way better. For the most part one know the requested outcome, but does not know the path to get to the outcome which is makes it hard to see the cathedral approach as realistic.

If for some reason the cathedral model would be more realistic, I could see how it could be the superior model. I just don’t see how it could be played out in most software development teams. Like I would hate my job if I couldn’t test and see what the customer actually wants but produce something that’s perfect. Maybe I just have the wrong idea of the cathedral model.

Anywho, a principle that he enumerates that I believe rings true is number one, “Every good work of software starts by scratching a developer’s personal itch.’ I feel like usually the things that are good have resulted from a programmers desire to look into an issue and solve it. This is not necessarily the case for everything, but I definitely think it is a starting point for most solutions. It’s also think that the phrasing is interesting because usually that itch is an annoyance of having to do it all. the. time.

The future of software development I think is going to stay how it is now until people find a different way to make a profit other than keeping their code sealed. Unfortunately because the bigger companies feel like being open-source is not the best way they will continue keeping their code from the world. I definitely think that people contributing in different ways somehow creates a more structured code (because others need to be able to read it) or someone goes in to make sense of it and document it. This also allows for different ideas to flow and progress to be made! I definitely can see things being open-source in the far future but unfortunately I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon.

x

Reading05

The success of modern hackers such as Paul Graham says that our present society and its future is people will hope to get rich by creating the ‘next big thing’. By doing so, it seems that many young adults will work extremely hard during their twenties and then when everyone is in their thirties they’ll party and eventually settle down in their forties. It seems that if people get rich now then that pushes off all of the work that had to be done over thirty years and they’ll just have more time to do all of the things (travel, SLEEP, hobbies, not work on projects, or homework assignments, or study for tests, etc.).

I don’t think our society and culture should encourage risk taking and starting businesses because I think it could lead to a tremendous amount of people taking risk after risk and failing. Like I get that people will create start ups and become rich, but I don’t think it should be as encouraged as a way to be successful. I also am going in a really different way of life where money is not a ‘goal’ for me at the moment so it’s really hard for me to see that as a motivation. Like if someone gave me a million dollars I would pay my loans and donate most of it… Yeah. I would rather start a non-profit and help the world in a different way. I am not saying that people who are rich / start businesses don’t help the world, but I think it would be really difficult for me to do so in that way!!

Also, Paul Graham’s justification of income inequality is interesting. I feel like first, the rich are just average people so why does it have to be bad that that’s how these people want to live. I feel like now many people have learned to value experiences which is something that was not necessarily an opportunity available a hundred years ago. Like I would rather travel and learn about various cultures than have servants or material items. So, although rich people may seem like they live like an ‘average’ person it could be that they enjoy spending their money on different things than people a hundred years ago.

I think the next big thing is something with education, so I’m assuming web or an app. I think by providing education to people or even helping the education system is what people will want to invest in. I feel like this could go two ways: really well and help developing countries, or take a turn and increase the competitiveness in having our children excel at a young age. I definitely think this could be of use for people with disabilities. I met a little girl who loved learning with a program that was specific for children with dyslexia because that allowed her to learn and move forward. I also just reread this paragraph and realized I have so much hope for our society…

x

Reading04

It is quite important the choice of programming language in software development and computer science. When reading this question, the first I thought I had was a Operating Systems project, we did the project in C and that was a not so good of a decision. The TA that graded our project said, “If I could give you points for audacity, I would.” Yeah, we felt that through the project. There could have been a different programming language that we could have used in order to make our lives a bit easier.

When thinking of how “programming languages are not just technology, but what programmers think in” I feel like the different languages that are used force you to think in different ways to get to a solution. Graham was saying you wouldn’t want to program in machine language or how you have to pick a language depending on what kind of program you are writing and this is definitely not what we did during the planning portions of our project. So, over all it is important to consider what programming language to use. I’m currently in Operating Systems and working on projects in C allow me to figure things out differently than I would if I was writing in C++. This distinction is really beneficial to learning various techniques. The class really makes you think in a different way.

I don’t think programming languages are ‘better’ than the other. I do think that people like some more than other based on their way of thinking. Just like its a different way to think in, each different programming language changes that way of thinking a bit from others. So it may feel like some programming languages are more powerful than others, but it’s probably that some can do things in a better than others, but that doesn’t make them more powerful just a different mindset because where one lacks the other may have that strength. It would probably be wonderful for one programming language to have it all, but unfortunately, that is not the case so using different programming languages depending on the project is the way to go about it.

Throughout the evolution of programming languages it seems like we always start with laziness. People would create, what is now something as seen as necessary, in order to make things easier for themselves. These are the ‘features’ that we still see in the various programming languages and would struggle ourselves without them. For example, Lisp was different with the nine things that Graham said in Revenge of the Nerds. A couple are garbage collection, recursion, or a function type. These are some that we take for granted at times while programming. These are features that we will continue to see as programming languages continue to develop.

x

Reading03

As I was reading Paul Graham’s “The Word ‘Hacker’” it was clear that his version was compatible to Steven Levy’s description in some ways. Levy viewed a true hacker as someone who thinks that all information should be free. Graham wrote about the mechanisms that companies had in place to prevent copying and how hackers saw that as a threat to the intellectual freedom so their responsibility is to break these locks. In a similar was Levy speaks about how art and beauty can be created on a computer. Graham describes hackers and painters to have a lot in common. Paintings can be done by multiple people, just like multiple people can collaborate on software. I think that Graham does have a version of a hacker that was compatible with the description that Levy gave in his book.

From the discussion in class and “Why Nerds Are Unpopular,” I tried to reflect on my high school days to determine if I fell into the category of a ‘nerd’ or something like that. I personally don’t think so but what do I know. I never considered myself as a part of the ‘smart’ crowd at my school even though I would get pretty good grades and try more than others in school. Graham described nerds as people who wanted to be smart and had a passion to have more and more knowledge. This seems very accurate to my thoughts of what a nerd is. I feel like at some points, like when my sister called me a nerd, I could be a nerd but for the most part I think it was just that I valued education more than she did. Even with this I am conflicted because I never really thought of anyone at my high school as a nerd, so I am not exactly sure how that plays out. Either way, I never pictured myself as a nerd, I have always felt like more of an outsider.

Grahams depiction of a hacker still does not create a desire in me to be one. I feel like I still have a negative depiction of a hacker that I would not want to become one. When he mentioned that hackers are like painters and that there’s a lot in common I am reminded of how many people tell me that art is very related to the STEM fields and how many STEM majors are drawn to it, myself being one. I actually love painting canvases and being able to express through that form of art. I think that with things like this I was able to see some characteristics of Graham’s hacker within myself. This confirms within me that I am studying what I love and I still feel a part of the ‘computer science’ community, but being a ‘hacker’ still does not seem something that I want to do.

The person that Graham describes as a hacker is more off putting for me just like Levy’s description of a hacker.

Reading02

I go back to the question that was asked in class. When was the first time you were introduced to a computer? I remember having a desktop in our guest room and there not really being a reason to have this computer. In the book it is mentioned that people who had no desire to program computers were buying them. I now wonder what the reason for my parents to have this computer in our house. They barely knew how to speak English let alone use a computer. (Tbh, I don’t know if my mom knows how to use a computer.) So what was the purpose of purchasing this machine to them?

I never really thought about this introduction into my life. I forgot about the computer games we played or the typing races that my sister and I had. This allowed us to learn the technology and what it can do at a young age. I think that people can still benefit from their computer even if they themselves did not program it. There’s no reason to reinvent the wheel when it has already been done but one can build and have new ideas to build on top of what’s already done. The next question that Steven Levy asked is what I find interesting.

Is keeping this software private a good for the public or not? If people want to build or expand on what’s already there they can’t because there’s no access to it. I think back to this ‘American Dream’ that many people desire and people like Ken and Roberta Williams who created games were able to live the life that they always dreamed of by making money off what they created. If they had just posted how to create the game there would not have been as much financial gain.

I don’t think that The Hacker Ethic can truly and fully survive in a world of commercial and proprietary software. Unfortunately, in today’s society doing something you love and are called to do may not be where people end up because of financial reasons. Even though some of these people dream to become millionaires and end up doing so by developing a game and selling it. There is always the downside of doing something just for fun but because it does not create an income then it’s harder to continue or damaging to relationships.

I don’t think that being a professional programmer is better than being a ‘soul’ programmer or vice versa. This goes back to providing for a family and ‘filling’ your soul. It’s like asking, “Should I provide for my family with this job or should I do something I love even though it may not put food on the table?” there is not a “better” in this situation. The first person is thinking logistically and the second may have some faith that things work out.  I think it’s important to understand your personal values and see which direction is best for the life you’re living. Some people can do both of these and it’s the best outcome but not the most common.

Reading01

I think that it is important to spread the Hacker Ethic to a wider audience in order to show people how software development started and the hope or expectation that came with developing something. Even though it seems that today we have moved far from what the Hacker Ethic hoped for in the hacker community there is still an importance to what the community started as. The “True Hackers” and “Hardware Hackers” were similar in they tried to give people the most access to what was being created.

We see Lee Felsenstein who is trying his best to bring computers to the people. We learn that, “his goal was to break computers out of the protected AI towers, up from the depths of the dungeons of corporate accounting departments, and let people discover themselves by the Hands-On Imperative.” This shows the motive of using technology as ‘a force for good.’ Lee thought that it would be best if people had access rather than the government. He saw people who worked for the government as sellouts.

Efrem Lipkin, was the type of person to see flaws in everything. He did not believe that technology could be used for good like Lee Felsenstein did. When working for a company he saw the flaws in them as well and would not work because of their involvement in harmful causes. He did not want his work to be used to create harm in the world, so he would rather stop developing programs.

For myself, I can see where Efrem is coming from and how technology could be used for harm, but I agree with Lee Felsenstein that technology can be used for good and we should try our best to get this across to people. As we heard in class from people on different topics we can see how technology is used for good. We learned how Raspberry Pi’s are used and how QBasic was created for people without programming background. This allows people to get creative with what to make or design which can help with world be a better place. I feel like in the world we live in there will always be some ‘evil’ that is unavoidable which is where Efrem is coming from. The thing is that technology can be used for harm, but that’s not the only way it can be used. By spreading the Hacker Ethic more people can strive to this type of mentality.

I don’t know if compromising ideals is worth having a larger impact on the world. I want to say no, because I feel like that’s the safe answer. If you’re compromising your ideals for something then that means it’s bad -- right? What if by compromising your ideals you make something better in the world so then compromising your ideal is okay -- right? Yeah so this is the debate that I’m having because it depends on what ideals are being affected. Like, keeping hardware and programs secret in order to make money off of a product violates the Hacker Ethic that all information must be free, BUT allows the general population to have access to computers. So I still don’t know where I stand on this.

Reading00

According to Steven Levy a “True Hacker” is someone who could create beauty with what they were given. This included making something out of the ordinary or make something work with limited supplies. The hacker was to be judged only on what was created not the creator. Some examples of the qualities of a “True Hacker” were to always have this drive to want to create or make something better. For many of the people that were described this drive wouldn’t stop for sleep, food, grades, etc. but be consistent and allowed one to work through anything.

Starting with my first understanding of a hacker, this is very different. I remember when I used to think a hacker as a bad thing or someone committing a crime when I was younger. That has definitely changed with taking computer science courses and learning what hacking is and how it can create change. Even now with the understanding of what I have for a hacker sometime I revert back to the hoodie person in a basement. Although that may be the case for some people that’s not necessarily the case for everyone.

I wouldn’t want to be this ‘hacker’ that I visualize so I try to find the qualities that I don’t have in this person. The portrayal of a “True Hacker” throughout these pages is also someone that I would really not want to be like. Hacking has to be the center of attention in order to be a “True Hacker” and this can become a problem when there are people around you who care about your wellbeing. I felt like I fell into this role for a while when I would spend hours and hours doing assignments and not give up no matter how late it was. As the semesters went on I realized the importance of relationships with people and the years that I had at Notre Dame. I began falling out of this ‘hacker’ role and working a certain hour on assignments, going to bed at a decent hour, having great conversations with people, and enjoying the place that I was in. In the cse community it felt like you kind of had to be all in for while a to fit in which I’m glad I stopped caring about after one semester of ‘trying’ to fit in. I didn’t like the energy drinks that led to all nighters which then led to emptiness in conversations with people during the day.

I know that this “True Hacker” lifestyle may be for some people, but I recognize that it is not for me. I don’t find it inspirational or repulsive. I see the “True Hacker” as someone who can go days without having deep and meaningful in person conversations or interactions. These interactions and conversations are what bring me joy because you never know what you’ll encounter. I know there are great “True Hackers” out there in the world who have done marvelous things and I’ll just listen and read about them instead of joining them.