Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.os.linux.mint > #45051 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-08-12 23:04 -0400 |
| Last post | 2025-08-14 14:37 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 71 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.os.linux.mint
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2025-08-12 23:04 -0400
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-13 03:52 +0000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-13 03:41 -0400
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-13 08:25 +0000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2025-08-13 09:18 +0000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> - 2025-08-13 22:18 +1000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Loach505 <riffraffdj@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 09:49 -0600
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-13 21:22 +0000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2025-08-14 00:21 +0000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-14 02:38 +0000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-13 12:41 -0400
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-13 19:44 +0100
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2025-08-13 19:10 +0000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2025-08-13 15:18 -0400
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-13 21:16 +0000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Felix <none@not.here> - 2025-08-14 15:20 +1000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-14 05:53 +0000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-08-15 04:54 +0000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Felix <none@not.here> - 2025-08-15 14:58 +1000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2025-08-14 22:36 +1000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Felix <none@not.here> - 2025-08-14 23:20 +1000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2025-08-16 07:13 -0400
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2025-08-17 12:29 +1000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Felix <none@not.here> - 2025-08-17 12:31 +1000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2025-08-17 15:59 +1000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-17 07:07 +0000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2025-08-17 17:40 +1000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-17 22:01 +0000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-08-18 08:18 +1000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-18 00:15 +0000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-18 01:35 -0400
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-18 07:24 +0000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> - 2025-08-18 20:43 +0100
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Felix <none@not.here> - 2025-08-19 10:36 +1000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-08-19 13:10 +0000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2025-08-19 23:15 +1000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-19 21:25 +0000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Felix <none@not.here> - 2025-08-18 12:09 +1000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-18 01:53 -0400
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-18 07:25 +0000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Felix <none@not.here> - 2025-08-18 20:52 +1000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-18 12:13 -0400
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Felix <none@not.here> - 2025-08-19 10:31 +1000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-08-19 09:10 +1000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Felix <none@not.here> - 2025-08-19 10:40 +1000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2025-08-19 12:37 +1000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-19 03:16 +0000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2025-08-19 20:49 +1000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Felix <none@not.here> - 2025-08-19 21:31 +1000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-19 16:38 -0400
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-20 00:34 +0000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2025-08-18 05:51 +0000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2025-08-18 05:54 +0000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-17 03:16 +0000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2025-08-17 08:15 -0400
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-08-14 16:30 +0000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-14 20:42 +0100
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-08-16 00:10 +0000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-16 09:20 +0100
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-15 00:52 +0000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-08-16 00:10 +0000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-16 02:02 +0000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Felix <none@not.here> - 2025-08-14 14:38 +1000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2025-08-14 22:35 +1000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Felix <none@not.here> - 2025-08-14 23:18 +1000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Felix <none@not.here> - 2025-08-15 12:21 +1000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2025-08-15 15:39 +1000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-14 18:28 -0400
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Felix <none@not.here> - 2025-08-15 12:19 +1000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-08-16 00:10 +0000
Re: simple Linux Mint file transfer question Felix <none@not.here> - 2025-08-14 14:37 +1000
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Felix <none@not.here> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-14 23:20 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mg664qFh663U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #45080 |
Xeno wrote: > On 14/8/2025 3:20 pm, Felix wrote: >> Richard Kettlewell wrote: >>> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> writes: >>>> On Wed, 8/13/2025 4:25 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>>> What happens if you have more than 26 drives? >>>> You watch a Youtube video. >>>> >>>> "What Happens if You Have More than 26 Drives on Windows?" >>>> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viyBF3D7zhY >>> Cowards. There are something like 1200 capital letters in Unicode, they >>> could have used all of them before giving up. >>> >>> Seriously, who wouldn’t want an Omega drive? >>> >> >> did you mean iomega? I have a 100 mb drive in one of my PC's >> > I have 250 meg and 750 meg Iomega Zip drives - in a box, unloved and > forgotten. > still selling on eBay -- Linux Mint 22.1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | songbird <songbird@anthive.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-16 07:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <bn56nl-833.ln1@anthive.com> |
| In reply to | #45084 |
Felix wrote: > Xeno wrote: >>> Richard Kettlewell wrote: >>>> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> writes: >>>>> On Wed, 8/13/2025 4:25 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>>>> What happens if you have more than 26 drives? >>>>> You watch a Youtube video. >>>>> >>>>> "What Happens if You Have More than 26 Drives on Windows?" >>>>> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viyBF3D7zhY >>>> Cowards. There are something like 1200 capital letters in Unicode, they >>>> could have used all of them before giving up. >>>> >>>> Seriously, who wouldn’t want an Omega drive? *waves hand* i had one for a very short time before it stopped working. >>> did you mean iomega? I have a 100 mb drive in one of my PC's >>> >> I have 250 meg and 750 meg Iomega Zip drives - in a box, unloved and >> forgotten. >> > > still selling on eBay nothing to use on them and no reason now with 4-8TB sized SSDs available for reasonable prices. songbird
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-17 12:29 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mgct45Fkl6mU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #45122 |
On 16/8/2025 9:13 pm, songbird wrote:
> Felix wrote:
>> Xeno wrote:
>>>> Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>>> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> writes:
>>>>>> On Wed, 8/13/2025 4:25 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>> What happens if you have more than 26 drives?
>>>>>> You watch a Youtube video.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "What Happens if You Have More than 26 Drives on Windows?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viyBF3D7zhY
>>>>> Cowards. There are something like 1200 capital letters in Unicode, they
>>>>> could have used all of them before giving up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seriously, who wouldn’t want an Omega drive?
>
> *waves hand*
>
> i had one for a very short time before it stopped working.
>
>
>>>> did you mean iomega? I have a 100 mb drive in one of my PC's
>>>>
>>> I have 250 meg and 750 meg Iomega Zip drives - in a box, unloved and
>>> forgotten.
>>>
>>
>> still selling on eBay
>
> nothing to use on them and no reason now with 4-8TB
> sized SSDs available for reasonable prices.
>
>
> songbird
Which is why mine are in a box, unloved and unused!
--
Xeno
Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Felix <none@not.here> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-17 12:31 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mgct8tFl0a2U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #45125 |
Xeno wrote: > On 16/8/2025 9:13 pm, songbird wrote: >> Felix wrote: >>> Xeno wrote: >>>>> Richard Kettlewell wrote: >>>>>> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> writes: >>>>>>> On Wed, 8/13/2025 4:25 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>>>>>> What happens if you have more than 26 drives? >>>>>>> You watch a Youtube video. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "What Happens if You Have More than 26 Drives on Windows?" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viyBF3D7zhY >>>>>> Cowards. There are something like 1200 capital letters in >>>>>> Unicode, they >>>>>> could have used all of them before giving up. >>>>>> >>>>>> Seriously, who wouldn’t want an Omega drive? >> >> *waves hand* >> >> i had one for a very short time before it stopped working. >> >> >>>>> did you mean iomega? I have a 100 mb drive in one of my PC's >>>>> >>>> I have 250 meg and 750 meg Iomega Zip drives - in a box, unloved and >>>> forgotten. >>>> >>> >>> still selling on eBay >> >> nothing to use on them and no reason now with 4-8TB >> sized SSDs available for reasonable prices. >> >> >> songbird > > Which is why mine are in a box, unloved and unused! > I thought they could be useful for confidential files. No thief is likely to want to steal iomega disks. :) -- Linux Mint 22.1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-17 15:59 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mgd9dvFmuhaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #45127 |
On 17/8/2025 12:31 pm, Felix wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>> On 16/8/2025 9:13 pm, songbird wrote:
>>> Felix wrote:
>>>> Xeno wrote:
>>>>>> Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>>>>> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> writes:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 8/13/2025 4:25 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>>>> What happens if you have more than 26 drives?
>>>>>>>> You watch a Youtube video.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "What Happens if You Have More than 26 Drives on Windows?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viyBF3D7zhY
>>>>>>> Cowards. There are something like 1200 capital letters in
>>>>>>> Unicode, they
>>>>>>> could have used all of them before giving up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seriously, who wouldn’t want an Omega drive?
>>>
>>> *waves hand*
>>>
>>> i had one for a very short time before it stopped working.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> did you mean iomega? I have a 100 mb drive in one of my PC's
>>>>>>
>>>>> I have 250 meg and 750 meg Iomega Zip drives - in a box, unloved and
>>>>> forgotten.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> still selling on eBay
>>>
>>> nothing to use on them and no reason now with 4-8TB
>>> sized SSDs available for reasonable prices.
>>>
>>>
>>> songbird
>>
>> Which is why mine are in a box, unloved and unused!
>>
>
> I thought they could be useful for confidential files. No thief is
> likely to want to steal iomega disks. :)
>
A burnt CD has as much capacity, is in some cases - rewritable, and is
easier to fit into a SAFE. Zip disks are NOT paragons of reliability.
--
Xeno
Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-17 07:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <107rv2s$258ro$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #45129 |
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 15:59:27 +1000, Xeno wrote: > A burnt CD has as much capacity, is in some cases - rewritable, and is > easier to fit into a SAFE. Zip disks are NOT paragons of reliability. Rewritable optical media were never paragons of reliability, either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-17 17:40 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mgdfc0Fnt5oU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #45130 |
On 17/8/2025 5:07 pm, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 15:59:27 +1000, Xeno wrote:
>
>> A burnt CD has as much capacity, is in some cases - rewritable, and is
>> easier to fit into a SAFE. Zip disks are NOT paragons of reliability.
>
> Rewritable optical media were never paragons of reliability, either.
But they take up little space so - backups of backups. Just keep them
away from sunlight.
--
Xeno
Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-17 22:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <107tjfj$2kffr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #45132 |
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 17:40:48 +1000, Xeno wrote: > On 17/8/2025 5:07 pm, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> >> On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 15:59:27 +1000, Xeno wrote: >> >>> A burnt CD has as much capacity, is in some cases - rewritable, and is >>> easier to fit into a SAFE. Zip disks are NOT paragons of reliability. >> >> Rewritable optical media were never paragons of reliability, either. > > But they take up little space so - backups of backups. I used write-once media for that. Nowadays USB sticks are even more compact.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-18 08:18 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <68a25537@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #45138 |
In alt.os.linux.debian Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 17:40:48 +1000, Xeno wrote: >> On 17/8/2025 5:07 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 15:59:27 +1000, Xeno wrote: >>>> A burnt CD has as much capacity, is in some cases - rewritable, and is >>>> easier to fit into a SAFE. Zip disks are NOT paragons of reliability. >>> >>> Rewritable optical media were never paragons of reliability, either. >> >> But they take up little space so - backups of backups. > > I used write-once media for that. Such discs still degrade, just maybe not as fast. One exception are M-Discs since they don't have the "organic layer". > Nowadays USB sticks are even more compact. But also vulnerable to degrading over time. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-18 00:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <107trbr$2mlmp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #45139 |
On 18 Aug 2025 08:18:31 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > In alt.os.linux.debian Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >> >> On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 17:40:48 +1000, Xeno wrote: >>. >>> On 17/8/2025 5:07 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 15:59:27 +1000, Xeno wrote: >>>>> >>>>> A burnt CD has as much capacity, is in some cases - rewritable, and is >>>>> easier to fit into a SAFE. Zip disks are NOT paragons of reliability. >>>> >>>> Rewritable optical media were never paragons of reliability, either. >>> >>> But they take up little space so - backups of backups. >> >> I used write-once media for that. > > Such discs still degrade, just maybe not as fast. They did last for a few years. Unlike rewritable media. >> Nowadays USB sticks are even more compact. > > But also vulnerable to degrading over time. They would last even longer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-18 01:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <107ue3k$2r5v2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #45140 |
On Sun, 8/17/2025 8:15 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On 18 Aug 2025 08:18:31 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > >> In alt.os.linux.debian Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 17:40:48 +1000, Xeno wrote: >>> . >>>> On 17/8/2025 5:07 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 15:59:27 +1000, Xeno wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> A burnt CD has as much capacity, is in some cases - rewritable, and is >>>>>> easier to fit into a SAFE. Zip disks are NOT paragons of reliability. >>>>> >>>>> Rewritable optical media were never paragons of reliability, either. >>>> >>>> But they take up little space so - backups of backups. >>> >>> I used write-once media for that. >> >> Such discs still degrade, just maybe not as fast. > > They did last for a few years. Unlike rewritable media. > >>> Nowadays USB sticks are even more compact. >> >> But also vulnerable to degrading over time. > > They would last even longer. > USB sticks, the NAND does not last forever, and the USB stick is a poor archival media. The M-DISC could be pretty good, as time capsule material, but you have to wonder about the drives that are for sale now. https://www.amazon.com/Verbatim-98913-M-Disc-100GB-Surface/dp/B011PIJPOC https://www.amazon.com/Internal-Blu-ray-M-DISC-Burner-WH16NS58DUP/dp/B09GFK6Y9G I don't have a BluRay drive, and I don't plan on buying one either. The golden age of optical, has passed. Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-18 07:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <107uket$2t1gh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #45144 |
On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 01:35:46 -0400, Paul wrote: > On Sun, 8/17/2025 8:15 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> >> On 18 Aug 2025 08:18:31 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> >>> In alt.os.linux.debian Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 17:40:48 +1000, Xeno wrote: >>>> . >>>>> On 17/8/2025 5:07 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 15:59:27 +1000, Xeno wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A burnt CD has as much capacity, is in some cases - rewritable, >>>>>>> and is easier to fit into a SAFE. Zip disks are NOT paragons of >>>>>>> reliability. >>>>>> >>>>>> Rewritable optical media were never paragons of reliability, >>>>>> either. >>>>> >>>>> But they take up little space so - backups of backups. >>>> >>>> I used write-once media for that. >>> >>> Such discs still degrade, just maybe not as fast. >> >> They did last for a few years. Unlike rewritable media. >> >>>> Nowadays USB sticks are even more compact. >>> >>> But also vulnerable to degrading over time. >> >> They would last even longer. >> > USB sticks, the NAND does not last forever ... Never said it did. > ... and the USB stick is a poor archival media. Better than optical.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-18 20:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <107vvp0$3a8sv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #45140 |
On 18/08/2025 01:15, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > They did last for a few years. Unlike rewritable media. I was intrigued as there is a shelf of writeable and re-writeable media here. So I sampled them at random, when I had removed all the crap off the shelf so I could get to the disks. They're accessed once every 'never'! I should bin them but there is 33 years work and hobby history tied up in them. And I can guarantee there'll be a data sheet on one of them about some obscure chip that I just will not be able to find on the net if I bin them. Anyway, results. Stamped (mass produced) CD-ROM from 1995. All 630+ MB read with no errors reported. Read quite slowly. CD-R from 2001 with MC C++ v6.0. Read faster than the CD-ROM and again no reported errors. 600+MB copied CD-R from 2004 read with no errors. 600+MB copied DVD-R from 2008 2GB read with no errors. CD-RW from 2007 630MB read with no errors. So a massive sample of 4 disks pulled at random all read perfectly. I don't know how many soft correctable errors there were but CD / DVD has a large amount of built error correction just to fix the fact there can be errors on new media never mind old stuff. Drive was a HL-DT GU90N which is a slim laptop style drive. I was surprised the writeable media all read without problems. Now having found a copy of Win XP SP3 I should see if I can find something to install it on just for shits and giggles.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Felix <none@not.here> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-19 10:36 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mghv7kFg6l3U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #45159 |
mm0fmf wrote: > On 18/08/2025 01:15, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> They did last for a few years. Unlike rewritable media. > > I was intrigued as there is a shelf of writeable and re-writeable > media here. So I sampled them at random, when I had removed all the > crap off the shelf so I could get to the disks. They're accessed once > every 'never'! I should bin them but there is 33 years work and hobby > history tied up in them. And I can guarantee there'll be a data sheet > on one of them about some obscure chip that I just will not be able to > find on the net if I bin them. > > Anyway, results. > > Stamped (mass produced) CD-ROM from 1995. All 630+ MB read with no > errors reported. Read quite slowly. > > CD-R from 2001 with MC C++ v6.0. Read faster than the CD-ROM and again > no reported errors. 600+MB copied > > CD-R from 2004 read with no errors. 600+MB copied > > DVD-R from 2008 2GB read with no errors. > > CD-RW from 2007 630MB read with no errors. > > So a massive sample of 4 disks pulled at random all read perfectly. I > don't know how many soft correctable errors there were but CD / DVD > has a large amount of built error correction just to fix the fact > there can be errors on new media never mind old stuff. > > Drive was a HL-DT GU90N which is a slim laptop style drive. > > I was surprised the writeable media all read without problems. Now > having found a copy of Win XP SP3 I should see if I can find something > to install it on just for shits and giggles. > I would think that degradation of media is not a major issue if they're kept in a clean, relatively temperature stable environment. I have floppies and zips decades old perfectly readable, for example. -- Linux Mint 22.1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-19 13:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn10a8tpk.3ok1l.candycanearter07@candydeb.host.invalid> |
| In reply to | #45139 |
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote at 22:18 this Sunday (GMT): > In alt.os.linux.debian Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >> On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 17:40:48 +1000, Xeno wrote: >>> On 17/8/2025 5:07 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 15:59:27 +1000, Xeno wrote: >>>>> A burnt CD has as much capacity, is in some cases - rewritable, and is >>>>> easier to fit into a SAFE. Zip disks are NOT paragons of reliability. >>>> >>>> Rewritable optical media were never paragons of reliability, either. >>> >>> But they take up little space so - backups of backups. >> >> I used write-once media for that. > > Such discs still degrade, just maybe not as fast. One exception are > M-Discs since they don't have the "organic layer". > >> Nowadays USB sticks are even more compact. > > But also vulnerable to degrading over time. Aren't long term backups done with tape storage currently? -- user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-19 23:15 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mgjbn0Fnc7bU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #45172 |
On 19/8/2025 11:10 pm, candycanearter07 wrote:
> Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote at 22:18 this Sunday (GMT):
>> In alt.os.linux.debian Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 17:40:48 +1000, Xeno wrote:
>>>> On 17/8/2025 5:07 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 15:59:27 +1000, Xeno wrote:
>>>>>> A burnt CD has as much capacity, is in some cases - rewritable, and is
>>>>>> easier to fit into a SAFE. Zip disks are NOT paragons of reliability.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rewritable optical media were never paragons of reliability, either.
>>>>
>>>> But they take up little space so - backups of backups.
>>>
>>> I used write-once media for that.
>>
>> Such discs still degrade, just maybe not as fast. One exception are
>> M-Discs since they don't have the "organic layer".
>>
>>> Nowadays USB sticks are even more compact.
>>
>> But also vulnerable to degrading over time.
>
>
> Aren't long term backups done with tape storage currently?
Yes, and LTO is good (guaranteed?) for 30 years or more. It's also very
cost effective too, lowest cost per TeraByte and speed of access isn't
critical.
--
Xeno
Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-19 21:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1082q4f$3v9rn$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #45172 |
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 13:10:05 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote: > Aren't long term backups done with tape storage currently? Depends by whom.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Felix <none@not.here> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-18 12:09 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mgfgahF2q9qU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #45138 |
Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 17:40:48 +1000, Xeno wrote: > >> On 17/8/2025 5:07 pm, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 15:59:27 +1000, Xeno wrote: >>> >>>> A burnt CD has as much capacity, is in some cases - rewritable, and is >>>> easier to fit into a SAFE. Zip disks are NOT paragons of reliability. >>> Rewritable optical media were never paragons of reliability, either. >> But they take up little space so - backups of backups. > I used write-once media for that. > > Nowadays USB sticks are even more compact. yes, USB sticks are the best option for convenient data storage. -- Linux Mint 22.1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-18 01:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <107uf5a$2recl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #45142 |
On Sun, 8/17/2025 10:09 PM, Felix wrote: > > yes, USB sticks are the best option for convenient data storage. The charge is estimated to stay on the floating gates for ten years. What kind of Reed Solomon error corrector is used in a USB stick ? SSDs have much better handling of the media than a USB stick does. Find this kind of USB flash stick instead. This is an SSD architecture, rather than a common USB stick design. I doubt you can find the level of technical detail required to impress, but something like this might have working Wear Leveling and sparing. The reviews only give speed benchmarks, and the comments in the articles betray a lack of info even to the reviewer to use. These can do 800MB/sec, but the SLC cache eventually runs out and prolonged writes slow down (it behaves like it has TLC inside, which is a reasonable assumption). The thing likely gets warm when you do a long write. Some of these things, would be better packaged in metal housings, if they're going to get warm in usage. https://www.patriotmemory.com/products/rage-prime-usb-3-2-flash-drive To test those, use a USB type A port with a *red* tab. I have only one of those red tabs on my current computer. You would be using the red tab only for benching. Stick with blue tab ports for best SI (signal integrity). I've noticed some items plugged into the red port, are doing retries. Just something for you to test and see whether they did a good job on your motherboard PCB layout. Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-18 07:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <107ukh8$2t1gh$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #45146 |
On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 01:53:44 -0400, Paul wrote: > On Sun, 8/17/2025 10:09 PM, Felix wrote: > >> yes, USB sticks are the best option for convenient data storage. > > The charge is estimated to stay on the floating gates for ten years. Given that I refresh my offsite backups more than once a year, that’s fine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.os.linux.mint
csiph-web