Sometimes, I just know that a book is good just from its title.
Hackers & Painters is one.
And knowing that the author is Paul Graham helps reinforce that belief.

Hacking and painting have a lot in common. In fact, of all the different types of people I’ve known, hackers and painters are among the most alike.What hackers and painters have in common is that they’re both makers. Along with composers, architects, and writers, what hackers and painters are trying to do is make good things.
Cool. Why do you think I chose Tinker, Tailor? Right - a tailor is a maker.
Further on in the chapter, Graham talks about empathy - something I’ve talked about before.
Empathy is probably the single most important difference between a good hacker and a great one. Some hackers are quite smart, but practically solipsists when it comes to empathy. It’s hard for such people to design great software, because they can’t see things from the user’s point of view.
One way to tell how good people are at empathy is to watch them explain a technical matter to someone without a technical background. We probably all know people who, though otherwise smart, are just comically bad at this.
All this stuff is from chapter 2, which has the same title as the book. I’ll write about the other chapters later.
Anyway, if you want to understand the hacker mentality, or if you’re a hacker yourself, grab this book. I’m only at the 3rd chapter, but I know it’ll be good.

I would recommend the art of intrusion, by Kevin Mitnick | the definition of hacker seems to coincide with Mckenzie wark’s hacker manifesto, but I find it too idealistic
Comment by visceral — October 12, 2005 @ 1:19 pm
aren’t definitions somewhat idealistic by definition?
but thanks, i’ve read it already.
Comment by tinkertailor — October 12, 2005 @ 2:15 pm
a definition that does not describe a subject in its entirety or fails to capture the crucial aspects would fail as a definition. but perhaps its semantic and trivial in this case
-
“An ideal type is formed by the one-sided accentuation of one or more points of view and by the synthesis of a great many diffuse, discrete, more or less present and occasionally absent concrete individual phenomena, which are arranged according to those one-sidedly emphasized viewpoints into a unified analytical construct” Max Weber
Comment by visceral — October 12, 2005 @ 2:36 pm