The idea of a hacker that Paul Graham paints is very closely related to the idea of a hacker that Steven Levy created. They may not be the exact same (if you use the definition of a “true hacker” in this sense) but they seem like the same idea from different perspectives.
Graham outlines in “The Word ‘Hacker’” that the term hack can mean a well crafted and expert solution to a problem, or it can refer to a shoddily made workaround. In both cases, the one that made the hack – the hacker – is proud of what they have created and effectively solve their solution. This is very in line with the origins of hacking in MIT described by Levy, where the students were hacking out of sheer curiosity of their limits. Whether or not Alan Kotok’s implemented calculator was the most beautifully designed piece of software is up for debate, but it was undeniably the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel for Kotok. Incidentally, this in line with Graham’s description outlined in “Hackers and Painters”, where Graham draws the distinction between a hacker and a computer scientist.
Hackers do not need to know, or necessarily want to know, how computers work, rather, they just want to make something beautiful from their imagination using the software available. It may be a bit more technical, as a toddler is able to make a painting and be considered a “painter”, and a hacker needs more competence to make something that works on a computer, but those building blocks are the only hurdle to overcome. One does not need to know how a CPU works in tandem with the processer and the disk to store and information and make the magic black box work, they just need to look up some coding tutorials on YouTube and they know a thing or two about hacking. They may not have the skills to access any worthwhile database or make a code that works in O(n3) time to O(n log n), but they have the passion to make something, which is more than enough.
However, the two authors do not define the same hacker. They have overlap, but the specifics are different. Levy’s hackers had more defined rules. They resisted authority. They were married to the open source community. Their works are not for profit.
If we take a glimpse at Graham’s life, these rules are inconsistent. Graham himself sold Viaweb to Yahoo!, a prevalent tech giant at the time, and co-founded Y Combinator, an organization focused on giving money to creative tech solutions to hopefully find a successful product. This goes totally against the aforementioned rules outlines by Levy.
But this shows an interesting dynamic in the difference of hackers. While Levy’s hackers try to be self-sufficient, Graham’s use authority to make capitol gains. He recognizes that technology is not just something to experiment with, but something that can be used for profit. Which isn’t to say it makes the work hackers do less passionate or less genuine, but it allows that incentive to be a part of the lifestyle. In fact, not keeping everything open source is almost essential for a unique market advantage.
Not to delve too much into politics, but the difference between Levy and Graham can be analogous to communism and capitalism, respectfully. This is not to say any writer is more right or has a better definition of hackers, but the beliefs are not unique to the emerging technology. Levy’s hackers want to advance the tech community as a whole and help each other become better hackers, but Graham’s hackers do what they want because they want to, which can be a bit selfish, but the selfish incentive can also drive the community forward.
Graham’s idea of a hacker doesn’t change my mind of a hacker so much as it does lets me understand hackers more. That is, hackers don’t need to follow a set of rules and beliefs to be a “real” hacker. Hackers have the freedom and ability to define themselves however they want to be. In the current world of technology, there are too many people to place so many restrictions and use elitism to separate the real hackers from the frauds. As long as somebody has the passion and interest to further their skills at technology, then they should surely be able to pursue those. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and working in tandem with Graham’s painter analogy, if somebody likes what they have created, no matter how juvenile or manufactured, then it should be valid hacking.
In regard to my desirability to be a hacker, I think Graham’s perspective drives that forward. It’s much more welcoming, which goes a long way for anyone less than the top tier. While I don’t consider myself inept at programming, I recognize my peers with better skills than myself, and it can negatively affect my attitude and self-worth. However, I don’t need to be the best to feel useful, I just have to enjoy my own creations and hope someone else does too, and that goes a long way with my personal passions of hacking and painting.