I found the IBM piece interesting in particular because of the idea that information should be free according to hacker ethic. Levy described IBM as a bureaucracy, stating that they were ‘secretive and smug’ and only the priests were allowed to view their code. But who’s to say one hacker is better than the next? Levy says hackers should be judged on one quality, their ability to hack.
I really enjoyed the Stephen Levy piece and I realized that, I had the same view towards hackers that society also shared- anti social, computer science wizards. However, with this work, Levy led society to see that hackers aren’t just people out to get the technologically inferior, but to take risks and create new things and ideas. Levy then goes on to list many famous hackers and the contributions they have made to our society, such as big names in the Apple industry, and most would not be considered ‘hackers’ to most people, due to the negative connotation in which we give it. In fact, most hackers are there for improvement or simply, to fix whats broken. I’m not sure where society changed their views on hackers from the 1950s until now, but I know that without these risk-takers, our society wouldn’t be as technology advanced as it is today.