A new version of something existing should show clearly where it came from it. It should represent an iteration.
The original represented a celebration of technology and it's possibilities in competent and eager hands, when unconstrained. The new version is all about compromise and politics. It's political first, and only incidentally technological.
The original was short and concrete. This spans 20 pages and makes zero concrete principles.
The author misrepresents the simplicity of the original Hacker ethos as an absolutism, then moves on to show how absolutism has flaws. Shocking, eh?
I could go on, but I think my stance should be fairly obvious by now.
The original was a book! Yes, there was a nice concise list in that book, but this article is a response to more than just that list.
You seem to be thinking that "hacker ethos" means "Hacker Ethos™ by Levy" when the speaker is using it as... the word "ethos". There's no need for a response to be an iteration when there's just a fundamental disagreement about what ethics we should pursue.
> It's political first, and only incidentally technological.
"Information should be free" and "mistrust authority" are both obviously political statements, and most of the others are at least somewhat political in nature. That you don't see them as political is a reflection of you, not of some timeless pure technological nature inherent in them.
The original represented a celebration of technology and it's possibilities in competent and eager hands, when unconstrained. The new version is all about compromise and politics. It's political first, and only incidentally technological.
The original was short and concrete. This spans 20 pages and makes zero concrete principles.
The author misrepresents the simplicity of the original Hacker ethos as an absolutism, then moves on to show how absolutism has flaws. Shocking, eh?
I could go on, but I think my stance should be fairly obvious by now.