To get people to say "GNU/Linux", use "Free Software" in the right sense, and use the word "hacker" properly, you need to come up with a hack on its own. Just telling people how to use words doesn't do it. You need to come up with a hack to get them to want to use them in the way you intended. This is why I find it so strange that RMS's strategy has been to just tell people they're wrong. Clever marketing to change perception of these things would be just as worthy a hack as his three chopsticks, yet he somehow doesn't even seem to think on this wavelength.
From another perspective, I read The Hacker's Dictionary fairly early in my education / career as a programmer, and have (at least usually!) used the word "hacker" the way Richard describes.
I've also spent a fair bit of time listening to his lectures and reading his articles, and likewise have (at least usually!) used the terms GNU/Linux and "free software" the way he recommends, because I see where he's coming from and tend to agree.
Does he need clever marketing? I don't know; he didn't for me. What's different about the way I see things?
Well sure, the strategy of "tell people what words should mean" will work for some people like yourself, but clearly has not been enough to have the common use of the words switch over. I don't really know what the solution is, but there seems to be a very hard line in RMS's mind as to what the domain of "hacking" can be. He's extremely clever, a hacker, and a genius in certain areas (the GPL is such an amazing hack) but at the same time keeps banging his head against the wall using failed strategies instead of trying to hack his way to a solution. When was the last time you heard about something RMS did in the way he presented his ideas to be more receptive to others and thought "hey, that is pretty clever and a nice hack." I certainly can't think of anything, but he's clearly capable of doing it.
I think he probably has some personal moral code that prohibits him from trying to hack systems above a certain level of abstraction. Computers and security policies are below it, people's minds, emotions, and opinions are out of reach. In other words, the art of marketing is completely outside it.
YC on the other hand has a much higher bar for what is hackable, including things like getting user growth through clever marketing and viral loops, and keeping your startup solvent by selling breakfast cereal. RMS wouldn't go near these types of things, but they are in line with the hacking ethos.
I heard a lobbyist give a seminar once. He told a story about a campaign to influence for environmental laws. 75% of the fight was capturing a few key wors, get them associated with his side. Custodianship. Responsible. Etc.
Feels kind of evil and orwellian. rms (without the premeditated scheming) does something similar but blunt and people resist. We intuitively feel that if you make us use your words, you get power over us.
> He's extremely clever, a hacker, and a genius in certain areas (the GPL is such an amazing hack) but at the same time keeps banging his head against the wall using failed strategies instead of trying to hack his way to a solution. When was the last time you heard about something RMS did in the way he presented his ideas to be more receptive to others and thought "hey, that is pretty clever and a nice hack." I certainly can't think of anything, but he's clearly capable of doing it.
I think he chooses not to change his way of presenting it because he's presenting a philosophy, rather than simply trying to convince people to agree with him. I used to think he was a nut, the more time that passes, the more I realize just how perceptive and correct RMS has been about a great many things...
The truth is 'hack' as a phrase is becoming overly used, and taking value away from the actual terminology he is trying to advocate, a terminology that is associated to cleverness.
Not everything can be clever. At some point the usage of the phrase turns into marketing hype as a way for someone to gain the attention of a particuliar group.
"A xxx for hackers'
"how I hacked xxx"
It's really just a way to grab people who self identify with that word, they don't really mean those pitch lines. It's not FOR hackers, it's TARGETTED at "hackers".
Not every single accomplishment of rms' is a hack. That ambiguity is exactly what is killing the value of that word. Not every action of a hacker is a hack, nor are all the solutions they seek 'hacks.'.
> When was the last time you heard about something RMS did in the way he presented his ideas to be more receptive to others and thought "hey, that is pretty clever and a nice hack."
I guess this doesn't quite qualify and he may not even be the originator of the idea, but I thought it was pretty clever:
What's different about the way you see things is the fact that you care about those things or at least are interested in them. RMS' approach tends to fall down when he's trying to convey his points to a larger audience that doesn't have an inherent interest in what he's talking about. He tends to take as self-evident why people should care about the things that he cares about, and goes straight to arguing about his position on those things.
If the intended audience for his philosophies were only some especially elite group of hackers, that'd be fine (although it'd still be a pretty hard sell for a lot of them :), but I think he sees his intended audience as being all of humanity. When he talks about why Free Software matters, he might be more convincing if he spent more time talking about why openness matters, or even why software matters period. I have a feeling he's so deep into his world that he actually can't see things from the perspective of someone who doesn't understand why software itself is an important thing (never mind how it should be written or distributed).
Tangent: I agree with a lot of the principles that he stands for, but have a hard time trusting his thought processes. Whenever I've read his writings about the origins of his philosophy or the justifications for it, it always seemed like he decided up front what he wanted his philosophy to be, then retconned a bunch of really detailed and articulate rationalizations for it. I don't get the impression that he burns any cycles trying to understand other people's perspectives or playing Devil's Advocate against himself. That's why whenever anyone talks about his consistency as being a virtue (and they always do), it actually makes me trust his reasoning even less.
As a counter, I would say it is sometimes important to fully define something before you seek to implement it - particularly if that thing is subtle or complex or difficult to grasp. And often the person who defines something is a different person to the one who finds a way to implement it. I for one, like the rs' of the world.
Plus, I like to think perhaps there was some subtlety to his point about playfulness.. and maybe one who hacks for a living is just a hack.
I guess typical solution is to come up with a new word with desired meaning. This way 'programmers' became 'developers' and 'system administrators' are becoming 'dev ops'.
