Hello there !
I think both punk0x29a's taxinomy and ninguem's are valid .. word confusion may emanate from where we stand and whst syntagmatic/associative sets we consider :
If I consider what 'they WANT to achieve' , I'd say there are 3 :
Mere users < crashers/lamers < Hackers
If I consider what 'they CAN do' : then punk0x29a's post is to the point ..
The term 'hacker' must preserve its ideal epistemic attire .. Theo de Raadt is a Hacker .. Patrick Volkerding is .. jggimi/ocicat/J65nko are Programmers :-) .. the term computer scientist seems to me to be an 'academic label' that we may drop .. ie .. who can prove than Richard Stallman is to be granted the label 'computer scientist' while de Raadt is to be denied ? both hackers have contributed great pieces of software that have influenced cyberspace and IT .. and not just that .. ok ok :
In Karate terminology : we have a variety of titles on the basis of how much expertise is gained not just how many belts (dan) : shihan .. sensei .. renshi .. kyoshi .. hanshi .. O'sensei .. etc .. so we find people with different opinions about a master .. as much as about a hacker .. why ?
Because those people differ in how much they know about those they judge .. as much as about know-how to judge ..
|