[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: Isn't it a security hole...



Quite true, but by all accounts crackers dislike the name. You won't
succeed without a majority adopting the new term, and I'm afraid that
involves the cooperation of the culprits themselves. Otherwise, I'm sure
this long-running debate would have concluded long ago.

I think we should just accept that we're stuck with the double meaning.
As with other ambiguous words, the context usually points to the true
meaning.

Casper Boden-Cummins.

>----------
>From: 	Christopher R. Hertel[SMTP:crh@nts.umn.edu]
>Sent: 	15 August 1996 15:10
>To: 	debian-user@lists.debian.org
>Cc: 	The recipient's address is unknown.
>Subject: 	Re: Isn't it a security hole...
>
>On Aug 14,  2:35pm, Bruce Perens wrote:
>: Ahem. Let's not use the word "hacker" to mean "computer criminal" on
>: this list. "cracker" is more appropriate.
>>-- End of excerpt from Bruce Perens
>
>Seconded.  The term "hacker" originally referred to one who would
>"hack" at [working] code to make it better, faster, cleaner, more fun,
>etc.  The term has been badly misused in recent years, and for some has
>taken on a new meaning.  Given the true meaning of the term, most of
>the people on this list could be called "hacker".
>
>Chris -)-----
>
>-- 
>Christopher R. Hertel -)-----                   University of Minnesota
>crh@nts.umn.edu              Networking and Telecommunications Services
>
>



Reply to: