Why Linn DS

[mickc]

(2010-12-08 09:56)JohnC Wrote:  It is a sad thing that Word documents created about 15 to 20 years ago using software from the largest software company in the world cannot be read by the PC's I have today!

This is why I use Microsoft's SyncToy to back my data up - it uses no proprietary compression routines; instead it simply copies the files to the destination, leaving file and folder structure unchanged.
I'd hate to be using some form of backup then finding, years down the line, that the company's gone bust and the new 128 bit version of Windows 19 can't natively read my backups.

Mick

[linnrd]

(2010-12-13 20:12)mickc Wrote:  

(2010-12-08 09:56)JohnC Wrote:  It is a sad thing that Word documents created about 15 to 20 years ago using software from the largest software company in the world cannot be read by the PC's I have today!

This is why I use Microsoft's SyncToy to back my data up - it uses no proprietary compression routines; instead it simply copies the files to the destination, leaving file and folder structure unchanged.
I'd hate to be using some form of backup then finding, years down the line, that the company's gone bust and the new 128 bit version of Windows 19 can't natively read my backups.

Mick

It's not that the data file cannot be read from the backups. It's the fact that the only software that can usefully get at the contents of the file is legacy software that no longer runs on current operating systems. This is a serious issue for archival purposes that libraries and subscribers to digital journals from 20 yrs ago are just facing.

[tormod]

(2010-12-14 21:13)linnrd Wrote:  

(2010-12-13 20:12)mickc Wrote:  

(2010-12-08 09:56)JohnC Wrote:  It is a sad thing that Word documents created about 15 to 20 years ago using software from the largest software company in the world cannot be read by the PC's I have today!

This is why I use Microsoft's SyncToy to back my data up - it uses no proprietary compression routines; instead it simply copies the files to the destination, leaving file and folder structure unchanged.
I'd hate to be using some form of backup then finding, years down the line, that the company's gone bust and the new 128 bit version of Windows 19 can't natively read my backups.

Mick

It's not that the data file cannot be read from the backups. It's the fact that the only software that can usefully get at the contents of the file is legacy software that no longer runs on current operating systems. This is a serious issue for archival purposes that libraries and subscribers to digital journals from 20 yrs ago are just facing.

mickc, linnrd

Most of the backup problems are connected to compression on the files together with backup commands and backup software that is not working on the nest version of Windows.

If files are kept in their native format and size on a readable media there will always be a way to read them.

Archives that are made of tape and other medias stored away and not used for decades will have serious problems; most likely there will not be a physical media that can read them.

Professional electronic libraries will always be up to date on readabilities of their data;

The only good way to keep your files that you don’t want to loose safe is to keep them back up on a external HD. A second backup is stored outside you house or in a fireproof safe. All the files must be kept in their original size and format. The two backups are exchanged once a month.

Today there is also a lot of Internet based backup services, personally I would not trust any of them.

Tormod

[rowlandhills]

(2010-12-14 22:48)tormod Wrote:  If files are kept in their native format and size on a readable media there will always be a way to read them.

Unfortunately, this is simply not true, as many native formats are proprietary, and if you don't have the original software (or in some case hardware!) you can't read the data. For example, if you have a document in Microsoft Word 2.0 there is no way to read this with any current software, you need to get a copy of Word 95, install that on an appropriate PC, then use that to convert the file into Word 95 format. You can then use a current version of word to load the Word 95 format document, but without that intermediate copy of Word 95 (which can no longer be purchased) you cannot access the Word 2.0 data!

This is one big reason why I completely support Linn's approach of using open formats wherever possible. Since FLAC is a fully documented open standard, provided that your music is stored electronically and backed up appropriately, it will always be possible to read it.

[tormod]

(2010-12-15 10:32)rowlandhills Wrote:  

(2010-12-14 22:48)tormod Wrote:  If files are kept in their native format and size on a readable media there will always be a way to read them.

Unfortunately, this is simply not true, as many native formats are proprietary, and if you don't have the original software (or in some case hardware!) you can't read the data. For example, if you have a document in Microsoft Word 2.0 there is no way to read this with any current software, you need to get a copy of Word 95, install that on an appropriate PC, then use that to convert the file into Word 95 format. You can then use a current version of word to load the Word 95 format document, but without that intermediate copy of Word 95 (which can no longer be purchased) you cannot access the Word 2.0 data!

This is one big reason why I completely support Linn's approach of using open formats wherever possible. Since FLAC is a fully documented open standard, provided that your music is stored electronically and backed up appropriately, it will always be possible to read it.

rowlandhills

Of cause you can find or make up examples like this, but I will say it is very unlikely that you in real life will have a situation you describe.

Reason why, you likely upgraded your word as they came along with new versions and your documents followed over to the next version of word.
There was also a warning along with new version of Word when you needed to convert if you want to keep you files in a readable format.

If you are completely lost and need the data it is always possible to read the data out as a text file, some rubbish but you get your data.

The FLAC arguments compared to other formats are just a theoretical one; in practise it will newer happened.
That formats will change is true, better format will be developed from Microsoft or Apple, but I am 100% sure that there will be a possibility to convert the old ones to new, it have always been, and it will always be like so.

I newer expired in my time (25 years) with PC or Mac that one could not read your files on the next version and without any possibilities to convert them.

The only advantage with an open standard is that there exists an alternative for manufacturers like Linn. They do not have the resources required to make their own format and must choose a open one, but to turn that in to an argument for being better is far from the truth.

And for the open standards, you always have to rely on somebody to do the work if you are not a programmer; most likely you are just as trapped with open formats as you are with the closed.

Just take a peak at the price of Song Book and tell me who is being blackmailed, you with your open stranded or me with my iTunes and the Remote Control Point for free.

The only different is that Apple and Microsoft need good product to sell; they have bout the resources and the motivation to make good products.

Tormod

[linnrd]

tormod,
This is not a made up example. This is EXACTLY the problem that certain institutions are having with data files. We are talking "archiving" which is somewhat distinct from converting to new formats every time the program is updated.

rowlandhills,
One of the convenient ways of dealing with this problem is to have a virtual machine that is used exclusively for the purposes you mention; we have had need to do precisely this and virtualisation seems to have worked well so far. Another possible alternative for future is to store archival copies of office documents as RTF or some other open format; it is at this point that most of my friends who use LaTex tend to rub my nose in it.

[bez]

Some years ago the Atomic Energy Authority did extensive research into the best form for their vital archives, required to last for several hundred years. They decided on paper.
.. but of course this doesn’t help us.

[tormod]

(2010-12-16 05:07)linnrd Wrote:  tormod,
This is not a made up example. This is EXACTLY the problem that certain institutions are having with data files. We are talking "archiving" which is somewhat distinct from converting to new formats every time the program is updated.

rowlandhills,
One of the convenient ways of dealing with this problem is to have a virtual machine that is used exclusively for the purposes you mention; we have had need to do precisely this and virtualisation seems to have worked well so far. Another possible alternative for future is to store archival copies of office documents as RTF or some other open format; it is at this point that most of my friends who use LaTex tend to rub my nose in it.

linnrd,

I still think if a institutions run in to this kind of problem, there IT department was not up to the job they where paid to day.

I been working in the industry for decades and seen the impossible turn out to be possible, and there was always a human involved, finger trouble someone liked to call it.

I believe all institutions that looked upon their data seriously did manage to keep them readable.

Data loss caused by badly designed backup routines counts for considerable more problems than change of formats.

Backup is a must for people keeping their information stored on to a HD, some people trust an inexpensive raid system, they will be learning the hard way.
So my advice don’t keep more data on a HD then you are able to keep safe with proper designed backup routines.

Tormod

[vicdiaz]

One more reason to keep my LP12 and my vinyl LPs. Now, how do I explain this to my wife?

[rowlandhills]

(2010-12-15 12:21)tormod Wrote:  

(2010-12-15 10:32)rowlandhills Wrote:  

(2010-12-14 22:48)tormod Wrote:  If files are kept in their native format and size on a readable media there will always be a way to read them.

Unfortunately, this is simply not true, as many native formats are proprietary, and if you don't have the original software (or in some case hardware!) you can't read the data. For example, if you have a document in Microsoft Word 2.0 there is no way to read this with any current software, you need to get a copy of Word 95, install that on an appropriate PC, then use that to convert the file into Word 95 format. You can then use a current version of word to load the Word 95 format document, but without that intermediate copy of Word 95 (which can no longer be purchased) you cannot access the Word 2.0 data!

rowlandhills

Of cause you can find or make up examples like this, but I will say it is very unlikely that you in real life will have a situation you describe.

Reason why, you likely upgraded your word as they came along with new versions and your documents followed over to the next version of word.
There was also a warning along with new version of Word when you needed to convert if you want to keep you files in a readable format.

Seriously? When you upgrade your Word processor, you go back to every file that you've created and resave as the new version? I have literally thousands of files that I've created in old software. In the vast majority of cases I will have no reason to go back and reopen them, so I'm not going to take the weeks required for that time of activity "just in case".

All I'm saying is that with open formats, you can at least always get to the definition of the file format, allowing someone to code a tool to fix it. With proprietary formats, where the file structure is not public, you can't do this, so there is an increased risk of being unable to get your data.

This was a real situation for me, by the way, not a made up example. Some years ago I needed to get at a document I'd written while at university, and I had to build a Windows 95 machine, install some software on it, then load the file, resave it, and only then could I open it in a modern programme...

linnrd - completely agree re. virtual machines, but the problem can be (as in this case) where you need an intermediate programme which is no longer on sale, and you have to buy software from eBay (if you can find it) to install in order to do the conversion.