Who the heck are "makers?"

[Simon]

For me it conjours up the image of someone who is not hugely knowledgeable in any particular field and who hashes semi made stuff together and combines a basic knowhow in a number of fields

[Excavatoree]

I considered this in an earlier post, in which someone responded, it's quite simple:  Makers make things.

One need not engineer something in order to make it, one can follow plans, throw together just anything and hope for the best, use trial and error, etc.

One can engineer something without making it - my colleague can do the engineering work for a crawler frame for an excavator without knowing how to weld the thing together.  (But he must know how to specify the welds)  An engineer could design a product and pay someone to make the boards, assemble and test the whole thing - have a product they never even touch.

Dave has engineered things and made them - the microwatch comes to mind immediately.

Before the word "hacker" was corrupted, my computer science professor told us that "hackers" wrote code without designing it properly - they just "hacked away at it" until the computer did what was desired, with no regard to maintainability, robustness, adaptability, etc.

I've also thought of a "hacker" as one who doesn't quite know what he or she is doing, the "knows enough to be dangerous" type.  However, many consider any modification of a product, or even discovery of how it works (source code, etc.) to be "hacking."

[Bored@Work]

Before the word "hacker" was corrupted, my computer science professor told us that "hackers" wrote code without designing it properly - they just "hacked away at it" until the computer did what was desired, with no regard to maintainability, robustness, adaptability, etc.

I've also thought of a "hacker" as one who doesn't quite know what he or she is doing, the "knows enough to be dangerous" type.  However, many consider any modification of a product, or even discovery of how it works (source code, etc.) to be "hacking."

Those definitions are bullshit, and your professor has no clue.

Long before professors were talking bullshit about hackers the term hack was defined as a creative circumvention of a limitation. A hacker is someone developing and deploying said creative circumvention of a limitation.

Many hacks are very carefully planned, you could say designed or engineered, and very thoroughly executed. Many hacks require a lot of insight and deep knowledge how things work.

Bop Pease likes to make the distinction between well-trained engineers, and well-educated guys. Trained are the ones who got their papers, but have no real insight. Educated are the ones who somehow acquired a clue. It is the same here, hackers are typically the educated ones, while the trained ones mindlessly insist on a design, even if it doesn't work or doesn't fix a problem.

Don't get fooled by the wankers at hackaday. They are copycats and clueless kids, fooled by a millionaire running a fake underground website.

[Excavatoree]

I'd hardly use the word "bullshit" to describe a difference of opinion.   That's rather crude and rude.

To me, a creative circumvention of a limitation is a good, elegant design, but not a "hack."  A 'hack" is something that "works, but it could be done better."   If the design is "carefully planned and executed," in my mind, that's not a hack.  I've never heard "hack" used as you describe it - but, if I'm going to go by how it's used, then I have to say the folks who use the word to mean "breaking in" or "changing" or any of the other thing that I feel are bullshit are not incorrect either.  I can't complain about you calling my definition bullshit whilst I do the same to their definition.

These froo-froo "living language" people who change definitions on a whim and feel that we have no standards are partially to blame here.  It's as if enough people said that 2+2=5 that we could change the rules of math to allow it.

EG - "podium" is a raised platform on which a speaker stands, but thw word was corrupted  to mean "a structure that a speaker stands behind which may or may not hold notes, a microphone, etc.   "Verbal" literally means "with words" and describes written or oral communication, but many now feel that "verbal" only means the spoken words.  I could list several examples, but you see my point.

We do agree about the  terms "educated" and "Trained" it seems.

Trained means to know the steps to do something, while "educated" implies an understanding of the concepts involved.

EG I can train you to start an engine by saying "if it's cold, activate the choke" but the educated person knows that a cold engine needs more fuel, and that the choke plate will enrichen the mixture and allow a cold engine to start.  (yes, I'm old and still remember carburetors. )

[Leo Bodnar]

Before the word "hacker" was corrupted, my computer science professor told us that "hackers" wrote code without designing it properly - they just "hacked away at it" until the computer did what was desired, with no regard to maintainability, robustness, adaptability, etc.

Passing [unorthodox] personal opinion as a historical fact is unprofessional and misleading.

[Excavatoree]

Before the word "hacker" was corrupted, my computer science professor told us that "hackers" wrote code without designing it properly - they just "hacked away at it" until the computer did what was desired, with no regard to maintainability, robustness, adaptability, etc.

Passing [unorthodox] personal opinion as a historical fact is unprofessional and misleading.

I didn't do that.  

My own opinion is that the definition above isn't unorthodox - just because you and some others disagree.  I've heard that definition several other places as well.

[Leo Bodnar]

I didn't do that.  
My own opinion is that the definition above isn't unorthodox - just because you and some others disagree.  I've heard that definition several other places as well.

Sorry, I meant your professor, not yourself.  My apologies!

[Excavatoree]

Sorry I misunderstood. 

I guess it was unprofessional of him, seeing as how he's a Computer Science professor and not in etymology.  (I was a rouge EE in the CS department class)

I know I'm not much of a maker.   

Interesting discussion, however.   I've learned a lot.

[torch]

For me it conjours up the image of someone who is not hugely knowledgeable in any particular field and who hashes semi made stuff together and combines a basic knowhow in a number of fields

Hey, that's me!

I built the house I'm sitting in (well, not the block work, I'm a terrible bricklayer). I have a woodshop in the basement were I build/repair anything from cabinetry to old mahogany boats. My metal shop out back is equipped with a few welders, torches, mill, lathe, etc. I have a fairly large collection of antique outboards and classic motorcycles that I restore and rebuild (hence the mill and lathe -- have you tried to find a replacement pinion gear for a 1959 Scott-Atwater lately?  )

And now I'm trying to expand my electronics knowledge beyond the "that black hole must be were the smoke got out" stage.

I'm not sure I fully agree with the "hashes semi made stuff together" though. Yes, sometimes I build things from kits -- my first computer was a box of chips, a circuit board and a photostat of suggestions on how to adapt a teletype keyboard for input. (I bought it off some guy named Steve Jobs for $500 back around 1976.) But more often I buy bar stock or plate or dressed lumber. I don't think that's semi-made any more than buying a bunch of transistors. At the extreme end, I have milled my own lumber from trees growing on my own property, stickered it, dried it and created anything from staircases to wood pens with the resulting stock.

So, while I may not be "hugely knowledgeable" in any one field, I plan to continue to build on my meager storehouse until it is time to meet MY maker. 

[Mechatrommer]

specialist cannot build a complete or broader system, they are limited to specific (narrow) range, why? because they are specialist! on the other hand, generalist... they are not specialist, and they know less of every bit of knowledge. for eg: in order to build a nice electronic product, there will be (usually) electronics, mechanical and art/ergonomics involved not to mention making pcb, assembling etc. several number of specialist are needed to build that, and only one hobbiest/generalist is needed to build the same complete (but no so good) product. from my 2cnts observation.

so, a maker...  is it consist of many people? or one person only by definition? or if we talking about manufacturer brand name eg: tektronix, agilent, canon or nikon (camera) who are the maker? the engineers? or the bosses? or the company itself (non human) which according to "accounting discipline" is an alive entity? if the word "maker" is illusive, why it exists since before our grand grand father was born?

[Mechatrommer]

about the word hacker... shouldnt we trust the wiki? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacking though i see there is semantic clash here between what it was to be a hacker in the past, and what is the hacker in the reality of present time. the same the the word "pirate" (was argued in this forum sometime ago) where someone said the pirate is someone with one eye, wood leg, a parrot and skull flag on a ship, but someone else talking the "pirate" is someone who make a copy and sell of copyright soft material from his house. and in my very humble opinion. a hacker does not need to be "creatively" circumvent of a limitation, thats partly a job for a well trained and educated person. what matters is the passion and spirit to circumvent a limitation no matter how elegant or stupid it is, as long as it is circumvented. my basis for the word "hacking" is always be from the oxford dictionary "to cut/slash/chop" and whats that will be? use your imagination! i dont hold a strong absolution to a particular point/meaning.

ps: the enemy is always the "clueless" fanboys, and i probably could become one of them

[Bored@Work]

I'd hardly use the word "bullshit" to describe a difference of opinion.   That's rather crude and rude.

No, it properly describes the situation.

To me, a creative circumvention of a limitation is a good, elegant design, but not a "hack."

It doesn't matter what it is to you. I gave you the proper definition of a hack. You can research it, or you can sit there and continue with the fingers in your ear and singing lalala. I always find people funny who have the opportunity to learn, but refuse to do so, because they don't feel like it and it isn't in their mind.

[Excavatoree]

I'd hardly use the word "bullshit" to describe a difference of opinion.   That's rather crude and rude.

No, it properly describes the situation.

To me, a creative circumvention of a limitation is a good, elegant design, but not a "hack."

It doesn't matter what it is to you. I gave you the proper definition of a hack. You can research it, or you can sit there and continue with the fingers in your ear and singing lalala. I always find people funny who have the opportunity to learn, but refuse to do so, because they don't feel like it and it isn't in their mind.

1.  I never said it didn't properly describe the situation, I said it was rude and crude.  You can see a fat person walking down the street and say "you are a lard ass" and you will be properly describing the situation, but you will be thought a crude, rude person.  (The situation as you see it - as you define the word "hacker," my prof's definition is BS.)

2.  I didn't realize you were the authority on that word.  I did do some research, and no where do I see your definition.   I'll continue to look and learn.  I don't have my fingers in my ears, but when someone presents information that contradicts what I have learned from other sources, I have to do more research, but I'm not going to change my mind instantly based on one internet post.

It doesn't matter what that word means to you, either.   You and I both posted definitions on this forum that disagree.  One or both of us may be wrong.


From what I see, most people (outside of this forum, I must add) use "hacker" to mean a computer criminal.  I think we at least agree that they are wrong.  

[Leo Bodnar]

about the word hacker... shouldnt we trust the wiki?

Wikipedia is the last place to find trusted information in.  Written by maniacs and zealots and based on opinion and crap found... you've guessed it - online.

Words meaning are to be looked up in trusted sources like Webster or Oxford dictionaries.  Try Webster:

Definition of HACKER

1: one that hacks
2: a person who is inexperienced or unskilled at a particular activity <a tennis hacker>
3: an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer
4: a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system

Notice that 3: precedes 4:

Definition of MAKER

: one that makes
a capitalized : god
b archaic : poet
c : a person who borrows money on a promissory note
d : manufacturer

[Excavatoree]

Note also that 2 precedes 3, and 2 is not specific to computers, as 3 is.

Also note that I never said I was absolutely correct, and I never said anyone else was wrong.

I said I wasn't going to change my mind immediately upon reading one post, not that I never would change it nor that I wouldn't consider other research. 

[Excavatoree]

A meaning I have found in other research for "hack" is to modify something to add capability or improve functioning of a device beyond what the manufacturer intended.  So, a hacker would simply be a modifier.   

One thing that is clear is there are as many different definitions of "hack" or "hacker" as the number of people one asks - although some differ only in subtle shades of meaning.

[Mechatrommer]

2 person can draw 2 very different meaning. the classic solution will be 1 right and 1 wrong. but from what i learnt, both can be wrong or right or neither. we are all based on the "law of relativity".