Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #13870 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-03-04 13:14 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-05-03 10:57 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 143 — 39 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 13:14 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2015-03-04 15:15 +0100
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-04 14:19 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 14:32 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-03-04 08:53 -0600
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 15:08 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Kirk_Von_Rockstein <Kirk_Von_Rockstein@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-03-05 20:11 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2015-03-12 03:12 -0400
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-12 08:24 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Ruben Safir <mrbrklyn@panix.com> - 2015-03-12 19:07 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-03-04 09:57 -0500
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 15:10 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-03-04 11:57 -0500
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 17:14 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud John Rumm <see.my.signature@nowhere.null> - 2015-03-23 10:47 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud The Real Doctor <ian.groups@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-23 12:08 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud HarpingOn <postmaster@127.0.0.1> - 2015-03-04 15:11 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 15:22 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-04 15:36 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "Dennis@home" <dennis@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-03-04 17:07 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 17:15 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "Dennis@home" <dennis@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-03-04 18:43 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 18:55 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "Dennis@home" <dennis@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-03-04 19:13 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 19:48 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2015-03-04 23:47 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-05 07:55 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-03-05 09:53 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2015-03-05 12:09 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-05 14:19 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "Dennis@home" <dennis@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-03-05 19:27 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2015-03-05 22:04 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-03-05 10:04 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-05 12:28 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2015-03-05 13:00 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2015-03-05 11:50 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-03-20 14:24 -0400
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2015-03-22 15:05 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-03-04 14:51 -0500
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 20:16 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "John F" <j@j.ii> - 2015-03-10 14:44 -0700
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-03-11 17:45 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-03-11 14:15 -0500
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "John F" <j@j.ii> - 2015-03-11 15:42 -0700
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-11 23:26 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-03-12 18:17 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Adrian <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> - 2015-03-12 07:47 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "John F" <j@j.ii> - 2015-03-12 12:23 -0700
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "john james" <jj9801@nospam.com> - 2015-03-13 07:19 +1100
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "Dennis@home" <dennis@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-03-12 08:22 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2015-03-12 09:14 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-03-12 09:39 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Adrian <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> - 2015-03-12 09:42 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-12 16:59 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Adrian <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> - 2015-03-12 17:20 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-03-12 12:49 -0500
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-12 19:03 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-12 10:12 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-03-12 18:17 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "john james" <jj9801@nospam.com> - 2015-03-13 07:13 +1100
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-12 20:50 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-03-12 16:08 -0500
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-12 21:24 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Capitol <spam@wher.eva.co.uk> - 2015-03-12 22:00 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud ImperiusDamian <damianblack.wolf@gmail.com> - 2015-03-18 09:13 -0400
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2015-03-19 02:43 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-03-20 14:30 -0400
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "Dennis@home" <dennis@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-03-12 20:00 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Nigel Wade <nmw@ion.le.ac.uk> - 2015-03-12 09:47 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-03-12 09:38 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-12 09:43 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2015-03-12 10:50 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "John F" <j@j.ii> - 2015-03-12 15:25 -0700
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "Dennis@home" <dennis@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-03-13 08:19 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-13 12:43 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "Dennis@home" <dennis@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-03-13 19:39 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-14 02:12 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-03-13 15:13 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2015-03-13 16:53 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "Dennis@home" <dennis@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-03-13 19:30 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2015-03-14 13:00 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-14 14:48 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-14 16:43 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-14 17:58 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-14 22:41 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-14 18:20 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "Dennis@home" <dennis@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-03-14 19:34 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-14 22:43 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-03-20 14:53 -0400
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2015-03-15 13:34 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2015-03-15 15:41 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-15 18:40 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-16 15:35 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2015-03-16 15:45 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "Dennis@home" <dennis@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-03-16 16:21 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Andy Burns <usenet.feb2014@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2015-03-16 19:05 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-16 21:40 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-17 15:00 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Nigel Wade <nmw@ion.le.ac.uk> - 2015-03-12 11:17 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-12 12:03 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> - 2015-03-12 16:28 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-12 20:35 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-03-11 22:52 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-03-12 18:17 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2015-03-12 02:51 -0400
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-12 08:21 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Ruben Safir <mrbrklyn@panix.com> - 2015-03-12 19:09 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud HarpingOn <postmaster@127.0.0.1> - 2015-03-04 15:10 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 15:19 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2015-03-04 15:54 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 16:10 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2015-03-05 11:20 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-05 12:29 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 18:56 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-05 00:33 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2015-03-05 22:46 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-06 08:07 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2015-03-14 11:56 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-14 14:47 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "john james" <jj9801@nospam.com> - 2015-03-15 05:40 +1100
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-14 18:51 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "john james" <jj9801@nospam.com> - 2015-03-15 06:12 +1100
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-14 19:23 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "john james" <jj9801@nospam.com> - 2015-03-15 06:27 +1100
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-14 22:00 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "john james" <jj9801@nospam.com> - 2015-03-15 11:22 +1100
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-03-15 09:10 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tony Houghton <h@realh.co.uk> - 2015-03-15 00:08 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2015-03-15 15:34 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2015-03-15 18:33 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-16 07:46 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2015-03-16 00:16 +0100
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "John F" <j@j.ii> - 2015-03-16 10:55 -0700
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-16 18:10 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "John F" <j@j.ii> - 2015-03-17 13:55 -0700
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-17 21:15 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "John F" <j@j.ii> - 2015-03-17 16:17 -0700
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-18 08:15 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud "John F" <j@j.ii> - 2015-03-18 09:02 -0700
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-18 16:14 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud ruben <nowhere@nowhere.nor> - 2015-05-03 06:49 +0000
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2015-05-03 09:12 +0200
Re: Opensource slowing down? "GoogleDrive" private cloud Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-05-03 10:57 +0100
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-12 20:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mdsu5u$89q$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14040 |
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 18:17:28 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.] > > On 2015-03-12, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: > >> On 12/03/15 09:14, Folderol wrote: >> >>> What a load of twaddle. If we're into Armageddon scenarios I don't >>> think anyone would be considering data security! >> >> They probably ought to be - there's a lot of stored knowledge could be >> used to reboot civilisation - unless we really want to jump back to the >> 18th century and work it all out the hard way... > > Even then, the process will be long and difficult. And it depends on > the stored knowledge being readable by whatever hardware remains! How > many people can read a 9-track tape these days? > > Recommended reading: A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter M. Miller. > Excellent! I loved the monks sitting in the scriptorium, lovingly illuminating doohickii on parchment without the faintest clue that they were copying blueprints. However, I wouldn't recommend the follow-up "Saint Leibowitz and the Wild Horsewoman". More to the point, look at the way NASA almost lost a lot of their pre- Apollo lunar data and images: all carefully stored on carefully preserved reels of magnetic tape, but unusable when needed some years later because they'd junked the last tape deck capable of reading those tapes. Fortunately some engineers had taken a couple of decks home before the scrap merchants got them and stored them in their garages..... -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-12 16:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <873859q5z7.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #14051 |
Martin Gregorie writes: > More to the point, look at the way NASA almost lost a lot of their > pre- Apollo lunar data and images: all carefully stored on carefully > preserved reels of magnetic tape, but unusable when needed some years > later because they'd junked the last tape deck capable of reading > those tapes. It would have been easy to build new decks. There is nothing mysterious there. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-12 21:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gpc9tb-sos.ln1@squidward.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #14040 |
On 12/03/15 18:17, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.] > > On 2015-03-12, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: > >> On 12/03/15 09:14, Folderol wrote: >> >>> What a load of twaddle. If we're into Armageddon scenarios I don't >>> think anyone would be considering data security! >> >> They probably ought to be - there's a lot of stored knowledge could be >> used to reboot civilisation - unless we really want to jump back to the >> 18th century and work it all out the hard way... > > Even then, the process will be long and difficult. And it depends on the > stored knowledge being readable by whatever hardware remains! How many > people can read a 9-track tape these days? > > Recommended reading: A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter M. Miller. > It's actually probably easier to make a 9 track tape player from scratch than a DVD reader :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Capitol <spam@wher.eva.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-12 22:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q-ydne86hp3rkZ_InZ2dnUVZ8iWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #14040 |
Charlie Gibbs wrote: > ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.] > > On 2015-03-12, Tim Watts<tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: > >> On 12/03/15 09:14, Folderol wrote: >> >>> What a load of twaddle. If we're into Armageddon scenarios I don't >>> think anyone would be considering data security! >> >> They probably ought to be - there's a lot of stored knowledge could be >> used to reboot civilisation - unless we really want to jump back to the >> 18th century and work it all out the hard way... > > Even then, the process will be long and difficult. And it depends on the > stored knowledge being readable by whatever hardware remains! How many > people can read a 9-track tape these days? > > Recommended reading: A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter M. Miller. > I've always found that print solves all long term storage problems, at least up to 40yrs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ImperiusDamian <damianblack.wolf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-18 09:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mebtn3$gib$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14054 |
On 2015-03-12 06:00 PM, Capitol wrote: > Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.] >> >> On 2015-03-12, Tim Watts<tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: >> >>> On 12/03/15 09:14, Folderol wrote: >>> >>>> What a load of twaddle. If we're into Armageddon scenarios I don't >>>> think anyone would be considering data security! >>> >>> They probably ought to be - there's a lot of stored knowledge could be >>> used to reboot civilisation - unless we really want to jump back to the >>> 18th century and work it all out the hard way... >> >> Even then, the process will be long and difficult. And it depends on the >> stored knowledge being readable by whatever hardware remains! How many >> people can read a 9-track tape these days? >> >> Recommended reading: A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter M. Miller. >> > > I've always found that print solves all long term storage problems, > at least up to 40yrs. Carve it all in stone. That way it WILL last (almost) forever. Just ask the ancient Egyptians. ;) -- "If you love job security and don't respect yourself, you will love Perl." -- xardox in reddit/r/proramming
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-19 02:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmgkduq.ofm.spamtrap42@one.localnet> |
| In reply to | #14139 |
On 2015-03-18, ImperiusDamian <damianblack.wolf@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2015-03-12 06:00 PM, Capitol wrote: >> Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.] >>> >>> On 2015-03-12, Tim Watts<tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 12/03/15 09:14, Folderol wrote: >>>> >>>>> What a load of twaddle. If we're into Armageddon scenarios I don't >>>>> think anyone would be considering data security! >>>> >>>> They probably ought to be - there's a lot of stored knowledge could be >>>> used to reboot civilisation - unless we really want to jump back to the >>>> 18th century and work it all out the hard way... >>> >>> Even then, the process will be long and difficult. And it depends on the >>> stored knowledge being readable by whatever hardware remains! How many >>> people can read a 9-track tape these days? >>> >>> Recommended reading: A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter M. Miller. >>> >> >> I've always found that print solves all long term storage problems, >> at least up to 40yrs. > > Carve it all in stone. That way it WILL last (almost) forever. Just ask > the ancient Egyptians. ;) Oh, no! This thread might evolve into another instance of the debate between clay tablets vs. papyrus. :-) -- Robert Riches spamtrap42@jacob21819.net (Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-20 14:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.2f763166b3f4778798983c@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #14153 |
In article <slrnmgkduq.ofm.spamtrap42@one.localnet>, spamtrap42 @jacob21819.net says... > > On 2015-03-18, ImperiusDamian <damianblack.wolf@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2015-03-12 06:00 PM, Capitol wrote: > >> Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >>> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.] > >>> > >>> On 2015-03-12, Tim Watts<tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 12/03/15 09:14, Folderol wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> What a load of twaddle. If we're into Armageddon scenarios I don't > >>>>> think anyone would be considering data security! > >>>> > >>>> They probably ought to be - there's a lot of stored knowledge could be > >>>> used to reboot civilisation - unless we really want to jump back to the > >>>> 18th century and work it all out the hard way... > >>> > >>> Even then, the process will be long and difficult. And it depends on the > >>> stored knowledge being readable by whatever hardware remains! How many > >>> people can read a 9-track tape these days? > >>> > >>> Recommended reading: A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter M. Miller. > >>> > >> > >> I've always found that print solves all long term storage problems, > >> at least up to 40yrs. > > > > Carve it all in stone. That way it WILL last (almost) forever. Just ask > > the ancient Egyptians. ;) > > Oh, no! This thread might evolve into another instance of the > debate between clay tablets vs. papyrus. :-) The clay tablets have one solid advantage over papyrus. With clay tablets, when the library burns down they just get stronger.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dennis@home" <dennis@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-12 20:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5501f05b$0$62551$b1db1813$71902154@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #14025 |
On 12/03/2015 09:14, Folderol wrote: > On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 08:22:13 +0000 > "Dennis@home" <dennis@nowhere.invalid> wrote: > >> On 11/03/2015 22:42, John F wrote: >> >>> Exactly - and you can purchase a 1TB drive and a fireproof safe to put it in >>> for less than the cost of a years rental on a good cloud server >> >> As long as you know one hdd in a fireproof safe isn't a good backup. >> >> The disk will break if the safe isn't waterproof. >> The disk will break when the safe falls as the building crumples >> The disk will break when the safe gets too hot as the fire rating is for >> paper and it costs a lot more for one that will keep a disk safe. >> It doesn't stop some scrote pinching your computer and the safe. >> The disk will fail while copying the backup just as the main disk fails. >> You copy any data errors caused by software to the backup and lose the data. >> >> Do you want anymore reasons why its not a good idea? >> > What a load of twaddle. If we're into Armageddon scenarios I don't think anyone > would be considering data security! > > Also, conversely, if your data is stored remotely. > > What if the country the server is in has change of government, a revolution, a > nuclear attack, a tsunami, earthquake, meteor strike, blah blah blah. > Then you will find a new one and backup to there instead. If you and the backup are nuked then it either doesn't matter or you fall back to another backup. But as stated one backup hdd in a fire safe is not a good backup whatever you say.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nigel Wade <nmw@ion.le.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-12 09:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cmd5kuFsjojU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #14023 |
On 12/03/15 08:22, Dennis@home wrote: > On 11/03/2015 22:42, John F wrote: > >> Exactly - and you can purchase a 1TB drive and a fireproof safe to put it in >> for less than the cost of a years rental on a good cloud server > > As long as you know one hdd in a fireproof safe isn't a good backup. > > The disk will break if the safe isn't waterproof. Why would anyone get a fireproof safe which wasn't waterproof? > The disk will break when the safe falls as the building crumples Put the safe on the ground floor. Use an SSD. > The disk will break when the safe gets too hot as the fire rating is for paper and it costs a lot more for one that will > keep a disk safe. Anything will break if it gets too hot. But it will last a lot longer than if it wasn't in a fireproof safe. > It doesn't stop some scrote pinching your computer and the safe. The weight does. My fireproof safe weighs 70Kg. > The disk will fail while copying the backup just as the main disk fails. No it won't, > You copy any data errors caused by software to the backup and lose the data. As you do with any backup, including copying to the cloud. > > Do you want anymore reasons why its not a good idea? > Not one of your stated reasons means it is not a good idea.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-12 09:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cmd547FsaumU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #14016 |
On 2015-03-11, John F <j@j.ii> wrote:
>
> "Robert Heller" <heller@deepsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:r8GdnVmSCY3wCZ3InZ2dnUU7-IudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> At 11 Mar 2015 17:45:37 GMT Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
[45 lines snipped]
>>> A friend recently lost a lot of valuable photos due to Cloud failure.
>>> Even if there's no malice involved, shit happens.
My advice is never to store anything "in the cloud" unless you can afford
to have it stolen or lost.
> Exactly - and you can purchase a 1TB drive and a fireproof safe to put it in
> for less than the cost of a years rental on a good cloud server - even if
> the cloud server is free, it costs you in terms of dealing with the
> advertizing and spyware etc delivered with all the public services nowadays
You don't even need the safe if you have somewhere "off site" to store the
disk - I keep mine in my locker at work.
--
Today is Sweetmorn, the 71st day of Chaos in the YOLD 3181
I don't have an attitude problem. If you have a problem with my attitude,
that's your problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-12 09:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mdrn4s$av9$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #14026 |
On 12/03/15 09:38, Huge wrote: > On 2015-03-11, John F <j@j.ii> wrote: >> >> "Robert Heller" <heller@deepsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:r8GdnVmSCY3wCZ3InZ2dnUU7-IudnZ2d@giganews.com... >>> At 11 Mar 2015 17:45:37 GMT Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > > [45 lines snipped] > >>>> A friend recently lost a lot of valuable photos due to Cloud failure. >>>> Even if there's no malice involved, shit happens. > > My advice is never to store anything "in the cloud" unless you can afford > to have it stolen or lost. > >> Exactly - and you can purchase a 1TB drive and a fireproof safe to put it in >> for less than the cost of a years rental on a good cloud server - even if >> the cloud server is free, it costs you in terms of dealing with the >> advertizing and spyware etc delivered with all the public services nowadays > > You don't even need the safe if you have somewhere "off site" to store the > disk - I keep mine in my locker at work. > > Precisely. Fireproof is nuts. Two locations is all you need -- Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-12 10:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <VA.00000a17.2c7302fe@me.invalid> |
| In reply to | #14029 |
In article <mdrn4s$av9$2@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > Precisely. Fireproof is nuts. Two locations is all you need Fun to test, though, apparently: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/02/setting_the_iosafe_214_on_fire/ Cheers, Daniel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "John F" <j@j.ii> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-12 15:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mdt3m6$bcj$1@jefelex.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #14032 |
"Daniel James" <daniel@me.invalid> wrote in message news:VA.00000a17.2c7302fe@me.invalid... > In article <mdrn4s$av9$2@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher > wrote: >> Precisely. Fireproof is nuts. Two locations is all you need > > Fun to test, though, apparently: > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/02/setting_the_iosafe_214_on_fire/ > > Cheers, > Daniel. > > This is cool (actually hot)!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dennis@home" <dennis@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-13 08:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <55029d91$0$18431$b1db1813$df808093@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #14055 |
On 12/03/2015 22:25, John F wrote: > "Daniel James" <daniel@me.invalid> wrote in message > news:VA.00000a17.2c7302fe@me.invalid... >> In article <mdrn4s$av9$2@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher >> wrote: >>> Precisely. Fireproof is nuts. Two locations is all you need >> >> Fun to test, though, apparently: >> >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/02/setting_the_iosafe_214_on_fire/ >> >> Cheers, >> Daniel. >> >> > > This is cool (actually hot)!! > > When someone takes one to bits can they look to see how they ensure mains doesn't get across the disks when the psu melts?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-13 12:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mdum21$eie$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14056 |
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 08:19:32 +0000, Dennis@home wrote: > On 12/03/2015 22:25, John F wrote: >> "Daniel James" <daniel@me.invalid> wrote in message >> news:VA.00000a17.2c7302fe@me.invalid... >>> In article <mdrn4s$av9$2@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher >>> wrote: >>>> Precisely. Fireproof is nuts. Two locations is all you need >>> >>> Fun to test, though, apparently: >>> >>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/02/ setting_the_iosafe_214_on_fire/ >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Daniel. >>> >>> >>> >> This is cool (actually hot)!! >> >> >> > When someone takes one to bits can they look to see how they ensure > mains doesn't get across the disks when the psu melts? The PSU looked like an external laptop brick to me, so the answer would be inside that. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dennis@home" <dennis@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-13 19:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <55033cfb$0$18441$b1db1813$df808093@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #14057 |
On 13/03/2015 12:43, Martin Gregorie wrote: > On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 08:19:32 +0000, Dennis@home wrote: 8< >> When someone takes one to bits can they look to see how they ensure >> mains doesn't get across the disks when the psu melts? > > The PSU looked like an external laptop brick to me, so the answer would > be inside that. > > Well it might not be, you would want to protect your valuable assets that you went to the trouble of buying a fireproof device for. I just wondered what this protection was, it should protect against anything that could damage the power brick including: fire, water, crushing and probably incompetent users.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-14 02:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <me05ep$gk5$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14061 |
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 19:39:41 +0000, Dennis@home wrote: > On 13/03/2015 12:43, Martin Gregorie wrote: >> On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 08:19:32 +0000, Dennis@home wrote: > > 8< > >>> When someone takes one to bits can they look to see how they ensure >>> mains doesn't get across the disks when the psu melts? >> >> The PSU looked like an external laptop brick to me, so the answer would >> be inside that. >> >> >> > Well it might not be, you would want to protect your valuable assets > that you went to the trouble of buying a fireproof device for. > > I just wondered what this protection was, it should protect against > anything that could damage the power brick including: fire, water, > crushing and probably incompetent users. > ... but it obviously didn't protect the brick against fire, etc., judging by the nicely actinic flash when the fire got to it. You're right, of course, but it seems likely that whether the disks get a dose of 110/240 AC or not depends on the brick's design rather than the box itself. This is best checked out by opening up the brick and seeing how it prevents mains AC from connecting to the DC out lines when it gets melted. IOW did they get lucky during the El Reg demo or are the disks always saved from electrocution? I've just passed the question on to Trevor Pott and will pass on what he says. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-13 15:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mduuq912ngi@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #14056 |
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.] On 2015-03-13, Dennis@home <dennis@nowhere.invalid> wrote: > On 12/03/2015 22:25, John F wrote: > >> "Daniel James" <daniel@me.invalid> wrote in message >> news:VA.00000a17.2c7302fe@me.invalid... >> >>> In article <mdrn4s$av9$2@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Precisely. Fireproof is nuts. Two locations is all you need >>> >>> Fun to test, though, apparently: >>> >>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/02/setting_the_iosafe_214_on_fire/ >> >> This is cool (actually hot)!! > > When someone takes one to bits can they look to see how they ensure > mains doesn't get across the disks when the psu melts? Who needs a fire? I once had a power supply spontaneously commit murder/suicide while I was using it. The machine just quietly locked up - but the motherboard and both hard drives were destroyed. And I learned the hard way that my backup procedures were inadequate... -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-13 16:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20150313165305.5e9797e2@debian> |
| In reply to | #14058 |
On 13 Mar 2015 15:13:13 GMT Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.] > > On 2015-03-13, Dennis@home <dennis@nowhere.invalid> wrote: > > > On 12/03/2015 22:25, John F wrote: > > > >> "Daniel James" <daniel@me.invalid> wrote in message > >> news:VA.00000a17.2c7302fe@me.invalid... > >> > >>> In article <mdrn4s$av9$2@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Precisely. Fireproof is nuts. Two locations is all you need > >>> > >>> Fun to test, though, apparently: > >>> > >>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/02/setting_the_iosafe_214_on_fire/ > >> > >> This is cool (actually hot)!! > > > > When someone takes one to bits can they look to see how they ensure > > mains doesn't get across the disks when the psu melts? > > Who needs a fire? I once had a power supply spontaneously commit > murder/suicide while I was using it. The machine just quietly > locked up - but the motherboard and both hard drives were destroyed. > And I learned the hard way that my backup procedures were inadequate... Shouldn't be an issue these days. Modern decent quality PSUs have over-volt "crowbars" on the outputs. Just don't buy cheap ones. -- W J G
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dennis@home" <dennis@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-13 19:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <55033aec$0$44272$b1db1813$b96de544@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #14058 |
On 13/03/2015 15:13, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > Who needs a fire? I once had a power supply spontaneously commit > murder/suicide while I was using it. The machine just quietly > locked up - but the motherboard and both hard drives were destroyed. > And I learned the hard way that my backup procedures were inadequate... > Shh, you don't want to upset the people that think that one hdd makes a good backup solution.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web