[peter_d_sherman]

Let me sum up all possible books about understanding the "hacker" (terrible word by the way, because of multiple meanings, which meaning are we talking about?) mindset, to a management perspective:

1) True "hackers" value knowledge over money.

2) True "hackers" value doing things once and doing them right, no matter how long that takes. (Compare to the business mindset of "we need it now", or "we needed it yesterday")

3) True "hackers" value taking ownership in their work, that is, whatever they work on becomes an extension of themselves, much like an artist working on a work of art.

4) True "hackers" are not about work-arounds. If/when work-arounds are used, it's because there there's an artificial timeframe (as might be found in the corporate world), and there's a lack of understanding in the infrastructure which created the need for that work-around.

But, all of these virtues run counter to the demands of business, which constantly wants more things done faster, cheaper, with more features, more complexity, less testing, and doesn't want to worry about problems that may be caused by all of those things in the future (less accountability) -- as long as customer revenue can be collected today.

You see, a true "hacker's" values -- are completely different than those of big business...

And business people wonder why there's stress and burnout among tech people...

[akerl_]

I’m not a hacker if I’d rather hack together something quickly, even if it’s a bit hacky? That would seem to violate your #2 rule for “true” “hackers”. Or if I like hacking my way through a problem instead of doing it the expected way? That would seem to violate #4.

And I’m not a “true” “hacker” if I want to make money?

I thought I was a hacker. But if this is what hackers are, I’m pretty ok with being voted off the island.

[sudosteph]

You're still a hacker. The parent comment is conflating engineers (by which I mean, like the kind of people who design bridges and critical infrastructure - not just the title given to anyone who can code) with hackers. Think of it this way. Almost all engineers are hackers, but the majority of hackers are not engineers.

Tons of hackers don't give a flying fuck about the "right way" to do something. Hackers are just the people who decide to apply their personal agency and creative talents towards building, altering, breaking and fixing things. There is no unifying motivation for doing so (though admittedly, curiosity is more common than money as a motivator), nor any standardized way of engaging in the process.

[akerl_]

I pretty wholeheartedly agree with your 2nd paragraph.

Regarding your first, I have similar concerns about this gatekeeping of “engineers”. Civil engineers and the like have much more stringent regulations and much more weight put onto correctness, but they aren’t required to prize correctness-for-its-own-sake, or think of their work like art, or be doing the work for its own sake rather than money.

I’m pretty confident that attempting to ascribe a unified motive to any group is a mistake.

[westurner]

> 3) True "hackers" value taking ownership in their work, that is, whatever they work on becomes an extension of themselves, much like an artist working on a work of art

There's something to be said about owning your work, but I have to disagree that unhealthy attachment to work products is a universal attribute of technical founder hackers. It's not a kid, it's a thing that was supposed to be the best use of the resources and information available at the time.

I must have confused this point with vanity and retention in projecting my own counterproductive anti-patterns.

Prolific is not the objective for a true hacker, but not me but a guy I know mentioned something about starting projects and seeing the next 5 years of potentially happily working on that project, too.