I've heard this line hundreds of times before. Hacking is not dead. Something can't be killed if you have the ability to turn on your computer and start doing right away. If you are concerned about whether hacking is alive or dead, perhaps you should fire up your computer and bring it back to life. It's that simple.
I agree with you completely and my writing was (intentionally) too liberal artsy; so let me put on my technical hat and level with you why hacking is no longer subversive.
1) Growing Complexity of Software Projects: in some sense, it's not about computer programmers "selling out." Because in both FOSS and enterprise software, the code-base has usually third-party dozens if not more dependencies. Writing software is now a team effort, and not a single team effort but more like a company-with-frontend-backend-QA-teams effort. Think back to the day when a individual or two person could write a 2D side-scroller in DOS, with thoughts and stressing even over the monster's sprites and midi soundtrack. Nowadays, an EA game is more like Wikipedia, with many contributors working without being conscious of others. And while Wikipedia is good by itself, but tell me, could Wikipedia contributors by their collective consciousness write War and Peace or Catcher in the Rye? Likewise, Emacs, Linux and Ruby were progenated by single individuals with their respective unfettered individual vision.
2) Compromising Hacking for Hacking's Purpose. Hacking started as an art, without regard for commerce; see RMS as an example of someone who followed his vision without regard for profits or social acceptance. Programming, in its current state, is funny enough the only art form where its leading vanguards and self-processed practitioners openly condone "selling out." I feel that programmers funny enough aren't complete sell-out's but are stuck in the middle ground, the worst of all places. We are told by Paul Graham & Company, that great hackers should be motivated by their craft intrinsically, but should either keep one's day job or start up our own company with an viable business strategy to save up for "fuck you money" (pardon my french). But in reality, having an corporate job or starting a Web 2.0 CRUD start-up makes you beholden to either your boss or your potential customers whom increasingly treat programmers as commodities/assembly-line workers to deliver business requirements. Tell me, did Van Gogh or Sylvia Plath do focus group/market research so that they could decide which colors and content category would be most pleasing to their audience before they set out to compose their painting/poetry? Similarly I'd argue either did Linus/RMS/Wozniak when they set out to hack. Art exists for itself, it serves no purpose. If it does find audience, the best art inspires, challenges and mocks the audience, but it never panders to its audience.
3) Lack of Encouragement in the Community to Buck the Status Quo; I guess that this point is related to my previous point - but I feel the ethos/outlook's of the early 90's at the dawn of personal computing was that anything was possible, whereas today is optimizing on status quo. A survey of new YC startup's include rehashes of social networks/blogs/online music. While occasionally Hacker News feature posts on AI, Bioinformatics, green technology and Arduino. Why is everybody crowded in the web space? Where are the implementation of the next generation's ideas? Ray Kurzweil talks about the coming of Singularity, for instance. I'd argue it is because people are so fixated on monetizing that they no longer push envelope.
I just realized that in my zeal, my commentary turned out to be still pretty liberal artsy. Like how Bob Dylan would respond to some heckler at some festival he played at some years back, the heckler said "hey, Bob Dylan your new songs are no longer as relevant as your old songs," to which Dylan responded, "well, I'm at least out here writing songs, what are you doing?" So I'm going to stop now and take OP's advice go hack now.
> in both FOSS and enterprise software, the code-base has usually third-party dozens if not more dependencies
Lua. ColorForth. STEPS.
> Writing software is now a team effort
There have always been software teams of many different sizes. But most projects on Sourceforge (or Github, or Freshmeat) are one-person projects.
> Think back to the day when a individual or two person could write a 2D side-scroller in DOS
It was more common for a group of two to five people to do it, you know, than for one person to do it. And there are any number of popular games these days built by small teams: World of Goo, Mafia Wars, Super Monkey Ball.
> as an example of someone who followed his vision without regard for profits or social acceptance.
Lots of people still do.
> today is optimizing on status quo
Most people are always trying to improve the status quo incrementally, except when that's obviously suicidal (e.g. the Ghost Dancers). In the early 90s "everyone" seemed to be working on graphics cards, database software, spreadsheets, word processors, and video games with themes licensed from movies or sports. The internet doesn't even appear in The Road Ahead. But some of us were doing other stuff... we just weren't visible until there was Wired.
Working on something new is never a popular activity because most new ideas are worthless. It's a generalization of the thing about 90% of startups failing: the other 10% mostly don't fail because they let their ideas fail and switched to something else.
> the only art form where its leading ... practitioners openly condone "selling out."
Complexity of enterprise software engineering has grown, but you're making the wrong comparison as the hackers of the 1990s or 80s didn't work on anything remotely enterprisy. The effect you can have today as an individual hacker is greater than in the 80s or 90s, not smaller, simply because there are more programmable things in the world.
You're complaining about commercialization and you're making the assumption that artists and other people driven only by intrinsic values never wasted a thought on how to sell things. Historically, I think, that's not true, but I do get your point that commercial interests were certainly not the primary motivator. I think that still holds for most hackers today. Just look at all those "my 10 biggest startup mistakes" lists. Many of those mistakes stem from following technical interests instead of commercial logic.
I agree with your third point. There is a huge stinking excuse for hackers working on trivial boring things like Facebook or Twitter. That excuse is scalability. Yes scalability causes complex problems and solving them is difficult. BUT solving interesting problems comes with even greater scalability issues. Solving a difficult problem AND making it scale is worth much more in a technical as well as in a commercial sense.
I'm not saying Facebook or Twitter are useless. Apparently many people have fun using them. But making something like that is not hacking. Just look at the technologies and approaches they used in the beginning and you know that solving interesting technology problems surely was not the original motivation.
You are truly oblivious, just blind to what exists in the world.
You're setting up an impossibly strict definition of a word whose definition is not widely agreed upon ("hacker"/"hacking"), then listing things that don't fall under the definition. Good for you. Bad for argument.
> Hacking started as an art, without regard for commerce
How far do you want to trace it back? 60's, 40's? How about a few hundred BC? Doing more with less, finding one's ways around limits has always been around and will always continue to be around.
Dipshit posers wiping their buddies hard drives will always be around, too. Does this make you happy? Is this what you want to be a part of? Would the world be a better place if we were all doing this?
> Writing software is now a team effort
WTF? Lots of stuff is a team effort. Lots of stuff is not a team effort. Don't join a team if you think it'll hold you back. What's your point?
Newton, "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants." He was just some dilettante using the knowledge discovered and shared by the folks who came before him in a new and interesting way, I guess. Not much effort, there, just a bunch of cut-and-paste of existing code (ideas).
> having an corporate job or starting a Web 2.0 CRUD start-up makes you beholden to either your boss or your potential customers
And turning your computer on makes you beholden to Apple (or Lenovo, or Dell, or ...) and your power and data providers. It's turtles all the way down.
> van Gogh
Are you serious? Yes he did seek commercial approval of his art (Nuenen (1883–1885)) and yes he did choose colors based on what was popular and appearing in the museums of his time (Antwerp (1885–1886)). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_van_Gogh
> the best art inspires, challenges and mocks the audience, but it never panders to its audience
[citation needed]. "Art" is a lot bigger than you're allowing for. Define it however you like. Put that definition in your wallet and show it to people at parties, but please don't assume your definition is bigger, better, or more perfect than everyone else's (says the little postmodernist living in my brain).
> Lack of Encouragement in the Community to Buck the Status Quo
Now you're taking the thing that defines the status quo--"Community"--and then complaining that it wants to follow what it defines? By definition, that's what the community does. Or do you mean that someone whom you believe should be encouraging you to do interesting things is not doing so? What, precisely, is it that "the community" owes you?
> early 90's at the dawn of personal computing
You mean almost 20 years after the introduction of the Apple II (in 1977)? Was that just pre-dawn? Early 90's already had Microsoft running more PCs than any other OS on the planet. That was pretty awesome for innovation and "anything's possible", huh?
> While occasionally Hacker News feature posts
Now you're just whining. If you want the HN scene to be more awesome for you then hang out, post more, and make it awesome. Otherwise, go back to your "real hacking is dead" sub-reddit and mope around there. This is what it is. Hacking is what it is. If your blinders prevent you from seeing awesome, take them off. You are info-rich and thought-poor, you are not entitled to have others filter the world in whatever way you want. If the community you find here isn't the community you want to be a part of, then run away like you're on fire.
> Where are the implementation of the next generation's ideas?
"Where's my flying car?" amiright? Implementations of "the next generation of ideas" are constantly fomenting. Many try, many fail. You've been reading too much futurist sci-fi.
> my commentary turned out to be still pretty liberal artsy
Tell me, did Van Gogh or Sylvia Plath do focus group/market research so that they could decide which colors and content category would be most pleasing to their audience before they set out to compose their painting/poetry?
There's nothing to prevent you from becoming the Van Gogh of programming, so there's no need to bemoan the mundanity of corporate coding either. It's obviously not your cup of tea, so do something wonderful instead.
If you want to do something amazing, just pick an amazing project and go crazy.
Maybe you'll start the next Google, or maybe you'll struggle to get by for 35 years in a row. Life is a series of compromises, disappointments, challenges, and all kinds of weird and wonderful things sprinkled in between. Pick your poison.
I wasn't responding to you, but to the post I commented under. I don't think of "hacker" as someone who does most of the stuff found in the first paragraph of your writing that opened this whole thread.
