Re: [semi-OT] Data archiving (was Re: Query on adding a USB hdd)
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 12:03:15PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> > Never heard of ODF, or is it specific to *Office programmes?
> > Personally, I save my latex as latex. The origional contents are
> > plainly visible.
>
> Never heard of ODF???? It's the OpenOffice.org 2.0 document format,
> aka OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications, ISO/IEC
> 26300:2006.
I've never used open office, or any other office-type product. The last
"word processor" I used was WordPerfect 5.0 for OS/2. Transitioned from
that to Lout when I went to Linux.
> >> Yes. If by computer you also mean "the whole schmeer, including
> >> many tape drives" since it's common on Big Systems to backup a
> >> single database in parallel to multiple tape drive.
> >
> > Computers keep getting smaller. Computer could mean a little brick that
> > has an interface for the archive drive, the archive drive unit, and some
> > kind of user interface. RS-232C has been around for ever; will it be
> > around for evermore? If the backup medium was hard disks, then an
> > interface for the hard drive plus an enclosure for the drives if the
> > brick didn't have the pysical space.
>
> If you did that in 1990, you'd have put in an ISA controller. Five
> years ago, it would have been a PATA drive.
I guess that's my point. Once you choose a data medium, you would need
to store at least one drive and a computer to access it.
If your backup media was 3.5" IDE drives, then that means storing a
computer that has at least IDE port. Best to fill it up with memory
SIMMS and other spare parts so that in when the time-capsule is opened,
hopefully the machine still boots. Also hopefully you can still connect
the computer itself to whatever computers in the future look like to get
the data off. Will anyone know what UTP is by then?
There is something to be said for casting something in plain text in
bronze and gold plating it.
Somewhere between the two is a Jolly Psysic, or at least a Happy Medium
:)
Doug.
Reply to: