Stereotypes: Linux and piracy/hackery

[triple_agent]

Have you ever encountered a stereotype linking Linux together with piracy or hackery? Do you know of any common reasons behind such beliefs? Do you think there are any traits in the Linux community, which could possibly work towards suggesting similar conclusions to the external viewers? Finally, do you acknowledge any margin of validity to this stereotype? Does a notion like that even exist?

[Cat on Linux]

piracy - no (they think nothing works on Linux so why we should pirate anything). hacking - yes, and that's pretty much valid claim :) Linux users are geeky types (at least in old times you had to be and this is the part of the stereotype). Geeky people usually hack better than housewives :)

[Cat on Linux]

btw here's interesting reading. 2008, netbooks. Taiwanese housewives buy Linux netbooks while geeks go for netbooks with XP.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/linux-for-housewives-xp-for-geeks/

[triple_agent]

To my sensibility, piracy is passe, I mean, it went out of fashion and became something understandably detrimental - well, did it? - while hackery on a level where it actually takes skill to break down defense patterns in order to get through, appears a very elusive art and stereotypically is associated with most exotic geeky practices, among which is using solely the Terminal and most obscure environments, impossible to identify. Nonetheless, a capable hacker for certain could pirate things well. But does it count as piracy to hack software for private use only, such as by using no-CD fix? Piracy is more about redistribution, I think.

EDIT:

I think the case with piracy or hackery on all platforms boils down to the issue of worldview - does one excuse oneself to go backwards with the law and even if, upon what basis?

[WarnerCK]

There was old FUD that because users of Linux didn't need to pay for the OS, they wouldn't pay for any software. It's never been true - Red Hat didn't make their money by busking, after all - and Humble Bundle showed that it wasn't true for normal users, either.

The second point is a language barrier. Hacker means the same as enthusiast, or tinkerer, or anyone else that makes their stuff do fun or interesting things. Linux users do tend to fall into this category.

The other term, for someone who uses their skill to gain unauthorised access, is "cracker," after people who open safes. The media weren't interested in the details, so used the former word to describe the latter people, and aren't interested in correcting themselves, either. Others have carried on that misusage for FUD purposes.

Whoever gave you those stereotypes really needs to update their FUD script.

[Cat on Linux]

Linux users have to pirate less (if they have to at all).

[triple_agent]

Originally posted by WarnerCK:

Hacker means the same as enthusiast, or tinkerer, or anyone else that makes their stuff do fun or interesting things. Linux users do tend to fall into this category.

The other term, for someone who uses their skill to gain unauthorised access, is "cracker," after people who open safes. The media weren't interested in the details, so used the former word to describe the latter people, and aren't interested in correcting themselves, either. Others have carried on that misusage for FUD purposes.

Very interesting point, certainly fair, as oftentimes one would hear that some geeky guys or even advanced programmers are "hackers", which instantly makes one think, well, why are they criminals? To hack, meaning, to tinker in the software, sounds good, while "crack" has some adequate connotations as well.

[triple_agent]

Originally posted by Cat on Linux:

btw here's interesting reading. 2008, netbooks. Taiwanese housewives buy Linux netbooks while geeks go for netbooks with XP.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/linux-for-housewives-xp-for-geeks/

The article is from the year 2008, wonder what is of geek choice now?

[Zommonk]

Baseless assumptions, I say! We are just outnumbered, that's all.

[Zyro]

I often met the stereotype that Linux users would be cheapskates, not wanting or not being able to afford a "real OS", but not including the imputation of piracy (see Cat's answer).

[@R+5]

That wasnt just "a point of view", but a historical fact: "hacker" didnt had a negative connotation until reporters and the mainstream media began to satanize the term from its relation to hippies and anrchists (people who are usually into diy and "tinkering"). It also became linked to negative activities in part from phone phreakers (a sort of social media hackers that used more traditional telecommunications systems to find new information, or even doing frauds as mundane as getting free pizza). since the earliest computer hackers were also linked with the evolution of gnu-linux, and the os itself has very slowly advanced into the mainstream, most people will naturally associate "hacker" + "linux".

Most people who do and consume piracy for need or for fun are windows users, and in secod place mac users, which is logical: windows has a bigger control of the market, and apple is usually sold as luxury (ie overpriced products that look fashionable, but which specs arent that great). But, consuming piracy before going legal, or using it to first do minor jobs to be able to afford legal versions of the software is a common path among many people who wish to learn or work when not having access to the resources to buy expensive software and paying rent, food and so on. so, thats one reason consuming piracy can be linked to hacking in that sense, since its a way to skip the "money gates" that limit the options of regular people.

Also, if you think about it, "crackers" and all types of hackers who want to specialize in security for good and bad things, need to experiment and figure out the weak points in copy protection methods, and many other locks to prevent piracy. from the point of view of someone ignorant, or relying in the regular media (which usualy focuses in promoting drama rather than critical thinking), is easy to understand why some people will think

"hacker -> piracy -> illegal activities" therefore "linux is part of illegal activities"

now, step back a little and remember that the original hacker were usually related to hippies and people sympathizing with anarchistic beliefs, for good and bad. all of them were also labeled as "misfits", "outsiders" and as such, they were also closely related (at least in peoples minds, because of the media) to "the red menace ("commies")". many people still think linux has communist undertones, because the business model for free software (rather than freemium or similar) is counter intuitive and not very well understood. from the little i know, free and open source sfotware isnt only consequence of hobbyists learning and sharing their experiments, but also people who rely in offering special assitance and support for money (ie rather than selling the software, they sell the support to fix systems and classes to learn to use it, or special subscription based strategies). this to someone, most people, who havent stopped to read a bit about linux and how it evolved to offer people a choice and freedom to control their own systems, will easily jump into thinking that offering things for free is communist. also, people offering free software to help reduce costs and a legal alternative to expensive software can make ignorant people think "commies".

then, simple minded people also go for:
hacker -> communists -> sabotage against us
therefor, also
hacker -> spy

also, from a legal point of view sharing in any form is usually piracy, even if doing for free (like tape recording to be able to listen a song without waiting for it in the radio, or having to find a "legal copy"). so, piracy isnt a fashion, is as old as commerce, and software piracy will always be linked to hackers, even if few hackers do actual piracy (ie distributing cracked software).

Im still very ignorant about how linux works, or other examples of how free and open source projects are funded, but im curious to learn, to become less superfluous.

[@R+5]

Originally posted by Rogue:

Why would you make a thread about harmful stereotypes?

Can you imagine doing this about any other group (ethic, religious, etc)?

I just think it's a strange discussion topic. Like with any other stereotyping, it comes from a place of igrnoace.

is only harmful if you dont discuss them.

[@R+5]

Originally posted by Rogue:

Originally posted by @R+5:

is only harmful if you dont discuss them.

We're discussing it in an echo chamber though. Of what benefit is it?

it benefits those who care to read carefully and think for themselves. that why writting is like throwing bottles to the ocean: some people will answer, or learn something new, other wil remain indifferent. writing isnt only to satisfy the masses, is to share ideas, and allow whoever finds them to find new perspectives.

[triple_agent]

@'R+5', I am very impressed with your elaborate answer, I have learned a great deal of information reading posts in this thread and hope for more.

Although, do you not think that eliminating of selling software but only software related services as some kind of outsourcing, could be interpreted as a way to eliminate the notion of piracy altogether, since all software should be for free in a perfect open source freeware world? I mean, you pointed this out yourself, it could be a collision of worldviews. Someone cracks some software even just for fun, while someone decides then to redistribute the material, because "people deserve it", because "capitalism is bad" and "software should be free"? Nonetheless, I have already found my image in your words as a rather short-minded "conspiracy theorist".

EDIT:

@Rogue, I believe awareness starts with those most prone to reach for it, then it resonates through. Someone has to dig something first, right? With whom do you want to discuss, with those who do not care? Besides, come on, I know of worse stereotypes in existence.

[triple_agent]

I think quality of replies in this thread eventually excuse the rough topic, if you would wish to call it that. If it becomes a toxic cave full of poor personalities, I will issue to close it down. Fair enough?

[triple_agent]

Originally posted by Rogue:

Originally posted by Triple_Agent_AAA:

I think quality of replies in this thread eventually excuse the rough topic, if you would wish to call it that. If it becomes a toxic cave full of poor personalities, I will issue to close it down. Fair enough?

Sounds like you want to police the thread because of differing views/opinions. However, you don't have the authority to close a thread.

I have noticed, but I rather you contribute something constructive than start a game of accusations, especially upon the notion of feeling offended without recognizable reason.