Re: TRS-DOS now more secure, was Re: Windows Is Now More SecureThanLinux
From: Richard Steven Hack (richardhack@SPAMHELLNOznet.com)Date: 08/08/02
- Next message: bardia: "checkpoint provider-1"
- Previous message: Anders Thulin: "Re: Data recovery question"
- In reply to: Alan J. Flavell: "Re: TRS-DOS now more secure, was Re: Windows Is Now More Secure ThanLinux"
- Next in thread: Tim Hogard: "Re: TRS-DOS now more secure, was Re: Windows Is Now More Secure Than Linux"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: Richard Steven Hack <richardhack@SPAMHELLNOznet.com> Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 13:58:57 -0700
On Tue, 6 Aug 2002 12:57:03 +0200, "Alan J. Flavell"
<flavell@mail.cern.ch> wrote:
>On Aug 5, Richard Steven Hack inscribed on the eternal scroll:
>
>> I use the term "archival" to mean anything used to back up the
>> machine.
>
>"backups" and "archives" are two very different animals. They really
>shouldn't be confused. They serve quite different purposes, have
>quite different properties, might call for quite different solutions
>and handling procedures.
I understand that. I'm simply using the term loosely because as a
personal system user rather than an IT user (at the moment), I have no
need for "archival" storage. However...
>> If you're backing
>> up, you're backing up for the reason that you might have to restore
>Quite so.
>>You'll rarely take, say, a five-year-old archive and use it to restore
>your system (unless you happen to be curator of a computer museum ;-)
But you have to be able to. Because it might be data that you need
NOT to restore your SYSTEM but because you need to review that data
(possibly for legal reasons involving the IRS or somebody). Whether
you are restoring something you did today or yesterday or last year or
five years is irrelevant to my point, tho. What matters there is the
media you used. And people on small business systems DID use floppies
for "long-term" (i.e., over a week, let's say) storage.
But the point is, even if they used it for daily storage, it was still
a bad media because in one second you could render it useless just by
flexing it too much.
IBM (and the PC industry that followed) should always have made the
media casing more durable (even to the extent of a stiff cardboard
case would have helped) - which only happened with the 3.5" floppies.
Now, IBM DID have the System/34 cartridge which you could store with
the ten floppies in it. But that was a Rube Goldberg device -
probably adopted because IBM didn't want to invent (and pay for the
manufacturing of) a whole new durable media just for the users of the
low-end System/32 and System/34 systems that they probably weren't
making enough revenue on to justify such an expense.
-- The Master"Whatever does not kill me makes me stronger" - and YOU have not killed me!
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
- Next message: bardia: "checkpoint provider-1"
- Previous message: Anders Thulin: "Re: Data recovery question"
- In reply to: Alan J. Flavell: "Re: TRS-DOS now more secure, was Re: Windows Is Now More Secure ThanLinux"
- Next in thread: Tim Hogard: "Re: TRS-DOS now more secure, was Re: Windows Is Now More Secure Than Linux"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
