18 May
2005
18 May
'05
4:44 p.m.
From: "Jim Leonard" <trixter at
oldskool.org>
---snip---
For years I've used RAR (WinRAR for windows, RAR
and RAR32 for
---snip---
Hi
It seems that may of you are missing the point. The archives
are intended to be useable in say 500 years ( moved to
future media ). Any proprietary application like WinRAR
is useless for this purpose.
I use ZIP files all the time but I would not use any of
this stuff for the purpose of archiving. I surely wouldn't
even consider a window application for archiving.
Even things like error correction need to have their
descriptions in the archive file. Do you expect to package
a X86 simulator and WinRAR into a HTML like format with
each of these compressed files? Back to reality folks!
Dwight
18 May
18 May
5:04 p.m.
On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 13:44 -0700, Dwight K. Elvey wrote:
While I agree with the rar thing, I'm going to disagree below.
From: "Jim
Leonard" <trixter at oldskool.org>
---snip---
For years I've used RAR (WinRAR for windows,
RAR and RAR32 for
---snip---
Hi
It seems that may of you are missing the point. The archives
are intended to be useable in say 500 years ( moved to
future media ). Any proprietary application like WinRAR
is useless for this purpose. I use ZIP files all the time but I would not use any
of
this stuff for the purpose of archiving. I surely wouldn't
even consider a window application for archiving.
Even things like error correction need to have their
descriptions in the archive file. Do you expect to package
a X86 simulator and WinRAR into a HTML like format with
each of these compressed files? Back to reality folks!
Dwight
Two things have to be taken into account, however:
* how practical is it to use the archive?
Putting it into a currently-standardish format is acceptable for the
medium term. There is no format which will withstand eternity, so as
long as it can be used NOW and for the foreseeable future it can be
converted later. Zip files (or tar) won't be around forever, but how
long has it been since you could buy half of the machines we've all got?
(heh, its been more than 10 years...) So while the format may become
obsolete, its not going to disappear overnight.
* how far does one have to go before you've gone to far?
That's a bit zen, but I think its an important question to ask.
Brian
10:40 p.m.
Dwight K. Elvey wrote:
It seems that may of you are missing the point. The
archives
are intended to be useable in say 500 years ( moved to
future media ). Any proprietary application like WinRAR
is useless for this purpose.
I think that *you* are missing the point that *no* archive can last that long
except maybe paper. (I say this because the media reader for paper is... all
humans. 100 years from now I wouldn't expect to be able to read a DVD-ROM,
for comparison.) Most digital archivsts agree that the goal is not 100 years,
but 10-20 so that it can be transferred to the new generation of media every
so often.
I use ZIP files all the time but I would not use any
of
this stuff for the purpose of archiving. I surely wouldn't
even consider a window application for archiving.
Your viewpoint doesn't make sense to me. We can still run MS-DOS programs
from 24 years ago; do you think that 24 years from now
we won't be able to run
windows programs? It doesn't matter anyway since I
use RAR; did you know
there is a source version of UNRAR that works on everything under the sun?
Even things like error correction need to have their
descriptions in the archive file. Do you expect to package
a X86 simulator and WinRAR into a HTML like format with
each of these compressed files?
Not EACH of them, no. I may have only been archiving digital media for 20
years, but everything I have ever laid my hands on is still readable. I
transfer it every 5-7 years or so to the newer generation of media, keeping
one generation backward around just in case. I also use error-correcting file
formats and/or make duplicates. Whenever I store things in .RAR, I always
include the archival program used to make it. This takes up 900K of a 4.3G
DVD-ROM so give me a little credit here.
It is better to archive now than to wait for "the best way" because, due to
human nature, there is no "best way". You can always translate data to a new
format.
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org)
World's largest electronic gaming project: http://www.MobyGames.com/
A delicious slice of the demoscene: http://www.MindCandyDVD.com/
Various oldskool PC rants and ramblings: http://www.oldskool.org/
11:13 p.m.
On Wed, 18 May 2005, Jim Leonard wrote:
Dwight K. Elvey wrote:
You're interpretting what Dwight is saying within your own context.
Dwight is referring to the content itself, not the media on which the
content (The Archive) is stored.
It seems that may of you are missing the point.
The archives
are intended to be useable in say 500 years ( moved to
future media ). Any proprietary application like WinRAR
is useless for this purpose.
I think that *you* are missing the point that *no* archive can last that long
except maybe paper. (I say this because the media reader for paper is... all humans. 100 years from now I wouldn't expect to be
able to read a
DVD-ROM, for comparison.) Most digital archivsts agree that the goal is
not 100 years, but 10-20 so that it can be transferred to the new
generation of media every so often.
This is now a given to anyone that's given it a couple moment's thought.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
11:30 p.m.
Vintage Computer Festival declared on Wednesday 18 May 2005 10:13 pm:
I think that the best way to combat that problem is to keep a live
archive on some sort of constantly-accessible (not off-line) medium,
like spinning disks. You will, of course, want to keep multiple copies,
potentially not all on-line.
Keeping the data online helps with ensuring that the data is kept on
accessible media - always copy the data off when you have to upgrade the
medium to something new. Storage can change a lot in 100 years, but
it's unlikely to change significantly enough at any one point to prevent
you from copying the data to then-current media.
Of course, make perodic backups/replicas of the data, and verify its
integredy against the replicas/backups as well as using checksumming,
such as md5 sums.
There's my $0.02 on the topic.
Pat
--
Purdue University ITAP/RCAC --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
humans. 100
years from now I wouldn't expect to be able to read a
DVD-ROM, for comparison.) Most digital archivsts agree that the goal
is not 100 years, but 10-20 so that it can be transferred to the new
generation of media every so often.
This is now a given to anyone that's given it a couple moment's
thought. 
11:42 p.m.
The only REALLY permanent archive would be to use steganography to embed
the archives within internet urban legends. The kid with cancer who needs
get well cards will be around longer than Stonehenge.
19 May
19 May
10:37 a.m.
On Wed, 18 May 2005, Fred Cisin wrote:
The only REALLY permanent archive would be to use
steganography to embed
the archives within internet urban legends. The kid with cancer who needs
get well cards will be around longer than Stonehenge.
:)
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
18 May
18 May
11:26 p.m.
From: "Jim Leonard" <trixter at oldskool.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 9:40 PM
Dwight K. Elvey wrote:
<snip>
It's putting the cart before the horse, once the media is digitized into a
format that includes the formatting information how it's archived is much
less important. It can be in any format that can be unpacked easily.
Lately I've been using self-extracting zip files. The reason is that just
by renaming the file from *.exe to *.zip most decompressors handle it just
fine and for 99% of the people it includes the software to decompress it.
Next year if a better format comes out I can transfer to that method.
No matter what format I've posted on my site I've had lots of complaints
that it's not the same format or version they are using, usually from people
running windoze.
By posting exe files I've gotten questions talking about trojan horses, or
they aren't running windows. I always say no matter what archive you
download always have anti-virus software running plus all you have to do is
rename the file to use it on most decompressors (yes it is also mentioned at
the bottom of the download pages).
You can not plan on what is the next best archival tool and you can't please
everyone. Use what you have and try to make it so most people can handle it
one way or another.
Randy
www.s100-manuals.com
It seems that may of you are missing the point.
The archives
are intended to be useable in say 500 years ( moved to
future media ). Any proprietary application like WinRAR
is useless for this purpose.
I think that *you* are missing the point that *no* archive can last that
long except maybe paper. (I say this because the media reader for paper
is... all humans. 100 years from now I wouldn't expect to be able to read
a DVD-ROM, for comparison.) Most digital archivsts agree that the goal is
not 100 years, but 10-20 so that it can be transferred to the new
generation of media every so often.
I use ZIP files all the time but I would not use
any of
this stuff for the purpose of archiving. I surely wouldn't
even consider a window application for archiving.
Your viewpoint doesn't make sense to me. We can still run MS-DOS programs
from 24 years ago; do you think that 24 years from now we won't be able to
run windows programs? It doesn't matter anyway since I use RAR; did you
know there is a source version of UNRAR that works on everything under the
sun?
11:45 p.m.
Randy McLaughlin declared on Wednesday 18 May 2005 10:26 pm:
Lately I've been using self-extracting zip files.
The reason is that
just by renaming the file from *.exe to *.zip most decompressors
handle it just fine and for 99% of the people it includes the software
to decompress it.
So, to fan the flames, what's wrong with tar? There's a lot more
machines I know of that can easily handle tar files than zip files...
Even WinZip can decompress tar files... while I still had a running
Windows machine, I used WinZip to decompress tar files several times.
Plus, tar is an (intentionally) open format; gnu tar is available for
lots of different platforms, and it's even easy to write your own tar
extractor.
Especially for long term archiving, I think that things like simple, open
formats are more important than making sure that everyone's grandma can
figure out how to use the archive... ie, assuming that the person has a
grasp of being able to learn new things, and some idea of logic are IMO
reasonable assumptions.
Pat
--
Purdue University ITAP/RCAC --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
19 May
19 May
12:46 a.m.
From: "Patrick Finnegan" <pat at computer-refuge.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 10:45 PM
Randy McLaughlin declared on Wednesday 18 May 2005
10:26 pm:
Personally I like TAR.
I use self extracting archives because if you are computer literate the
instructions printed on the download page should tell you what it takes to
extract it.
If you are a windoze user with you head up where the sun doesn't shine it
just works.
It works for the largest base, even for those that are just now ready to
learn.
I am not advocating winzip as a perfect system, just a system that fits my
personal desire to spread archives to as many as want to download them.
Randy
www.s100-manuals.com
Lately I've been using self-extracting zip
files. The reason is that
just by renaming the file from *.exe to *.zip most decompressors
handle it just fine and for 99% of the people it includes the software
to decompress it.
So, to fan the flames, what's wrong with tar? There's a lot more
machines I know of that can easily handle tar files than zip files...
Even WinZip can decompress tar files... while I still had a running
Windows machine, I used WinZip to decompress tar files several times.
Plus, tar is an (intentionally) open format; gnu tar is available for
lots of different platforms, and it's even easy to write your own tar
extractor.
Especially for long term archiving, I think that things like simple, open
formats are more important than making sure that everyone's grandma can
figure out how to use the archive... ie, assuming that the person has a
grasp of being able to learn new things, and some idea of logic are IMO
reasonable assumptions.
Pat
--
Purdue University ITAP/RCAC --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
1:29 p.m.
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 10:45:44PM -0500, Patrick Finnegan wrote:
Randy McLaughlin declared on Wednesday 18 May 2005
10:26 pm:
TAR doesn't deal gracefully with non-ASCII filename encodings (or
otherwise unconventional names, like spaces in the filename), or
files over a certain size.
There's nothing wrong with TAR as long as the above limitations
don't apply to what you're using it for.
My point at the beginning of the thread was that I don't think
archive programs should be damned simply because they run on a
certain platform. That's extremely narrow thinking. (I'm not
accusing you of that at all, just commenting on the thread responses
in general.)
--
Jim Leonard http://www.oldskool.org/ Email: trixter at oldskool.org
Like PC games? Help support the MobyGames database: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or taste a slice of the demoscene at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
Lately I've been using self-extracting zip
files. The reason is that
just by renaming the file from *.exe to *.zip most decompressors
handle it just fine and for 99% of the people it includes the software
to decompress it.
So, to fan the flames, what's wrong with tar? 
3:19 p.m.
So, to fan the
flames, what's wrong with tar?
TAR doesn't deal gracefully with non-ASCII
filename encodings (or
otherwise unconventional names, like spaces in the filename), My point at the beginning of the thread was that I
don't think
archive programs should be damned simply because they run on a
certain platform.
True. But I *do* think it reasonable to damn an archiver because it
runs *only* on a certain platform - especially if the format itself is
closed enough to preclude implementations on other platforms.
Note that I do not claim that any of the archivers mentioned by name
upthread fit this description. The few of them that I know do not, but
I don't know about the rest.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
7:17 p.m.
My point at the beginning of the thread was that I
don't think
archive programs should be damned simply because they run on a
certain platform. That's extremely narrow thinking. (I'm not
accusing you of that at all, just commenting on the thread responses
in general.)
I would certainly claim an 'archive program' should be damned if it isn't
'open' -- that is to say if there is not an adequate sprcification of the
archive format to allow an extractor to be written for any platform
(subject to limitations on disk space, memory, etc).
However popular a machine is now, there will come a time when there are
none still running (and I suspect this will be true of modern PCs long
before it's true of things like PDP11s, but I digress). I feel it's very
unlikely that our archive of boot disks will survive and no copies of a
now-common archive program specification will remain, though.
-tony
7:10 p.m.
Especially for long term archiving, I think that
things like simple, open
formats are more important than making sure that everyone's grandma can
figure out how to use the archive... ie, assuming that the person has a
grasp of being able to learn new things, and some idea of logic are IMO
reasonable assumptions.
You alos need to consider what is the most likely sort of person to want
to access this archive. It's an archive of boot disks, PROMs, etc for
what are _now_ somewhat obscure computers, and which will presumably be
even more obscure in the future. The sort of person to need that sort of
data is likely to have quite a bit of computer knowledge already, and is
not going to have problesm with tracking down a copy of gnu tar or
similar....
-tony
23 May
23 May
8:42 p.m.
On Fri, 20 May 2005, Tony Duell wrote:
Future computer historians (or even current ones for that matter) won't
necessarily have the computer skills necessary to track down or even use
tar.
It's not just technical people who will be interested in this stuff.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
Especially for
long term archiving, I think that things like simple, open
formats are more important than making sure that everyone's grandma can
figure out how to use the archive... ie, assuming that the person has a
grasp of being able to learn new things, and some idea of logic are IMO
reasonable assumptions.
You alos need to consider what is the most likely sort of person to want
to access this archive. It's an archive of boot disks, PROMs, etc for
what are _now_ somewhat obscure computers, and which will presumably be
even more obscure in the future. The sort of person to need that sort of
data is likely to have quite a bit of computer knowledge already, and is
not going to have problesm with tracking down a copy of gnu tar or
similar.... 
24 May
24 May
11:51 a.m.
New subject: zip
Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2005, Tony Duell wrote:
Future computer historians (or even current ones for that matter) won't
necessarily have the computer skills necessary to track down or even use
tar.
Why is it assumed that people in the future will be complete idiots?
Like current library technicians, who cannot possibly figure out the
technology of books that were printed more than 100 years ago.
It's impossible for them to figure out how to "turn the page", and are
struggling with the strange concept of "letters". And those "book"
things don't even taste very good.
These stupid people won't have any concept of a computer, so it is
unlikely that they will be able to read a tape, cd, etc. You will have
to carve the data on stone blocks in foot high letters.
Would they even know of "English"? You better make sure that the
data has been converted into cartoons without captions, like those
"spy-vs-spy" ones, because they will be too dumb to handle anything
more complex than that. The cartoons will probably be stretching
the limits of their minuscule brain-power.
Especially
for long term archiving, I think that things like simple, open
formats are more important than making sure that everyone's grandma can
figure out how to use the archive... ie, assuming that the person has a
grasp of being able to learn new things, and some idea of logic are IMO
reasonable assumptions.
You alos need to consider what is the most likely sort of person to want
to access this archive. It's an archive of boot disks, PROMs, etc for
what are _now_ somewhat obscure computers, and which will presumably be
even more obscure in the future. The sort of person to need that sort of
data is likely to have quite a bit of computer knowledge already, and is
not going to have problesm with tracking down a copy of gnu tar or
similar....
It's not just technical people who will be
interested in this stuff.
It will also interest the priests, like the Spanish priests who demanded
that all the Inca codex's be destroyed, and the people brought all they
could find to the priests to be burned; they couldn't read them, thus
they were obviously about devil warship.
So, you better hide the archive so that it cannot be found by priests,
or anyone who might know any priests; they cannot possibly understand
tar format, thus they will assume it must be evil and destroy it.
And to make sure they won't actively search it out, you better
make sure it confirms to all possible religious beliefs:
1. The earth is flat.
2. The sun and planets go around the earth.
3. Rome is the center of the universe.
4. China is the center of the universe.
5. Mexico is the center of the universe.
6. Mount Olympus is the center of the universe.
7. The world was created in 7 days.
8. The world was created from Budda's navel.
9. The stars are mounted on a fixed celestial globe.
10. There is no such thing as evolution.
11. It's Ok, even required, to kill anyone of another religion.
12. Killing them in the most brutal, slow, and painful ways
will gain you brownie points in the next life.
13. Oral sex isn't sex.
14. Microsoft is the center of the universe.
15. The earth sits on the back of a giant tortoise.
...
12:02 p.m.
New subject: zip
On Tue, 2005-05-24 at 09:51 -0600, Kevin Handy wrote:
Why is it assumed that people in the future will be
complete idiots?
We've got years of downward spiral as evidence :-)
Actually, as a species we'll probably remove ourselves from the equation
long before it actually matters. We'd be better off developing a format
that mice can understand :)
cheers
Jules
12:03 p.m.
New subject: zip
At 10:51 AM 5/24/2005, Kevin Handy wrote:
It's impossible for them to figure out how to
"turn the page", and are
struggling with the strange concept of "letters". And those "book"
things don't even taste very good.
Depends on which restaurant you visit. I went to "Moto" in Chicago
this weekend; several choices were printed, flavored paper:
http://www.motorestaurant.com
- John
12:24 p.m.
New subject: zip
16. VCF-ism, "Sellam is the center of his own universe." :)
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org]
On Behalf Of Kevin Handy
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 11:52 AM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: zip
Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2005, Tony Duell wrote:
Future computer historians (or even current ones for that matter) won't
necessarily have the computer skills necessary to track down or even
use tar.
Why is it assumed that people in the future will be complete idiots?
Like current library technicians, who cannot possibly figure out the
technology of books that were printed more than 100 years ago.
It's impossible for them to figure out how to "turn the page", and are
struggling with the strange concept of "letters". And those "book"
things don't even taste very good.
These stupid people won't have any concept of a computer, so it is unlikely
that they will be able to read a tape, cd, etc. You will have to carve the
data on stone blocks in foot high letters.
Would they even know of "English"? You better make sure that the data has
been converted into cartoons without captions, like those "spy-vs-spy" ones,
because they will be too dumb to handle anything more complex than that. The
cartoons will probably be stretching the limits of their minuscule
brain-power.
Especially
for long term archiving, I think that things like simple,
open formats are more important than making sure that everyone's
grandma can figure out how to use the archive... ie, assuming that
the person has a grasp of being able to learn new things, and some
idea of logic are IMO reasonable assumptions.
You alos need to consider what is the most likely sort of person to
want to access this archive. It's an archive of boot disks, PROMs, etc
for what are _now_ somewhat obscure computers, and which will
presumably be even more obscure in the future. The sort of person to
need that sort of data is likely to have quite a bit of computer
knowledge already, and is not going to have problesm with tracking
down a copy of gnu tar or similar....
It's not just technical people who will be
interested in this stuff.
It will also interest the priests, like the Spanish priests who demanded
that all the Inca codex's be destroyed, and the people brought all they
could find to the priests to be burned; they couldn't read them, thus they
were obviously about devil warship.
So, you better hide the archive so that it cannot be found by priests, or
anyone who might know any priests; they cannot possibly understand tar
format, thus they will assume it must be evil and destroy it.
And to make sure they won't actively search it out, you better make sure it
confirms to all possible religious beliefs:
1. The earth is flat.
2. The sun and planets go around the earth.
3. Rome is the center of the universe.
4. China is the center of the universe.
5. Mexico is the center of the universe.
6. Mount Olympus is the center of the universe.
7. The world was created in 7 days.
8. The world was created from Budda's navel.
9. The stars are mounted on a fixed celestial globe.
10. There is no such thing as evolution.
11. It's Ok, even required, to kill anyone of another religion.
12. Killing them in the most brutal, slow, and painful ways will gain you
brownie points in the next life.
13. Oral sex isn't sex.
14. Microsoft is the center of the universe.
15. The earth sits on the back of a giant tortoise.
...
7:49 p.m.
New subject: zip
On Tue, 24 May 2005, Computer Collector Newsletter wrote:
16. VCF-ism, "Sellam is the center of his own
universe." :)
I'm not sure about that, but I am definitely a legend in my own mind ;)
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
7:46 p.m.
New subject: zip
On Tue, 24 May 2005, Kevin Handy wrote:
I don't know what it's like in your worldview, but mine is filled with
total morons, and I have little hope for the future. Plus, and this has
been expressed several times already, when you're talking about preserving
information, ALWAYS EXPECT THE WORST. It is the safest approach.
Right, and this is why we don't know how to decode Quipus. Thanks for
qualifying my example :)
Future computer
historians (or even current ones for that matter) won't
necessarily have the computer skills necessary to track down or even use
tar.
Why is it assumed that people in the future will be complete idiots? Like current library technicians, who cannot possibly
figure out the
technology of books that were printed more than 100 years ago.
It's impossible for them to figure out how to "turn the page", and are
struggling with the strange concept of "letters". And those "book"
things don't even taste very good.
Do they know how to read a wax cylinder? Do they know how to make
equipment to do so? Are they capable of doing so?
Is tar any less complex a technology? What about 50-500 years from now?
This is the crux of the matter. You cannot apply your current level of
knowledge and understanding to what someone in the future might possess.
Worldviews change: what seems common and sensible and completely logical
to you today might not be so to someone in the future, so you simply
cannot make this sort of assumption.
These stupid people won't have any concept of a
computer, so it is
unlikely that they will be able to read a tape, cd, etc. You will have
to carve the data on stone blocks in foot high letters.
So tell me then how to read the information from a Quipu. It's a simple
device: just a bunch of multi-colored knotted string. If you can figure
this out, there's a huge community of archaeologists who study the Incas
who would erect a permanent shrine for you to celebrate your name for all
eternity.
Would they even know of "English"? You
better make sure that the
data has been converted into cartoons without captions, like those
"spy-vs-spy" ones, because they will be too dumb to handle anything
more complex than that. The cartoons will probably be stretching
the limits of their minuscule brain-power.
The ancient Egyptians were by all measures a fairly advanced society for
their place in history, yet the only reason we know how to read their
heiroglyphic writings is because we found teh Rosetta Stone that basically
translated it for us. Again, you cannot assume English will be known in
the future.
It's not
just technical people who will be interested in this stuff.
It will also interest the priests, like the Spanish priests who demanded
that all the Inca codex's be destroyed, and the people brought all they
could find to the priests to be burned; they couldn't read them, thus
they were obviously about devil warship. So, you better hide the archive so that it cannot be
found by priests,
or anyone who might know any priests; they cannot possibly understand
tar format, thus they will assume it must be evil and destroy it.
And this is a remote possibility because...? Do you watch the news these
days? Witch burnings are not far off in some parts of the US today. I
hear they're still debating evolution vs. creationism. I thought we had
that debated licked about 100 years ago but apparently ignorance is a more
powerful force than intelligence.
And to make sure they won't actively search it
out, you better
make sure it confirms to all possible religious beliefs:
1. The earth is flat.
The Biblical support for a Flat Earth and Geocentricism
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=4&fldAuto=61
These people are still out there.
2. The sun and planets go around the earth.
3. Rome is the center of the universe.
4. China is the center of the universe.
5. Mexico is the center of the universe.
6. Mount Olympus is the center of the universe.
7. The world was created in 7 days.
Do I even need to offer URLs?
8. The world was created from Budda's navel.
9. The stars are mounted on a fixed celestial globe.
10. There is no such thing as evolution.
DITTO
11. It's Ok, even required, to kill anyone of
another religion.
12. Killing them in the most brutal, slow, and painful ways
will gain you brownie points in the next life.
13. Oral sex isn't sex.
14. Microsoft is the center of the universe.
15. The earth sits on the back of a giant tortoise.
These are all examples of things that people believe or do today, so I'm
not sure how they can be examples that support your argument. These are
all examples of ancient beliefs, some somewhat unsophisticated, that still
persist in some segment or in some manner in today's world! On some
issues we are even regressing (re: evolution). So it shouldn't be too
much of a stretch to imagine in the future these "truths" being subverted.
Which brings me back to the one immutable truth: people are stupid; expect
the worst.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
11:39 p.m.
New subject: zip
At 06:46 PM 5/24/2005, Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
Plus, and this has
been expressed several times already, when you're talking about preserving
information, ALWAYS EXPECT THE WORST. It is the safest approach.
OK, I'll try to bring this back on topic. I know this question's
been asked one way or another a number of times before.
Are there any new developments in computer-driven printing technology
that bring us closer to archival output? Conventional laser
printing is not it; I think the plastic ink is too sensitive
to remelting or flaking under heat or pressure.
From this perspective, ink jet looks as long-lasting as any water-soluble
dipped-pen ink that's survived for a few hundred years depending on conditions.
Are archival ink-jet photo papers more resin-coated?
Are dye-sublimation printers (see http://science.howstuffworks.com/question583.htm )
a good shot for printing technologies that might be good for some
crazy scheme like Paperbytes that'll store digital data on paper?
- John
11:48 p.m.
New subject: zip
Are there any new developments in computer-driven
printing technology
that bring us closer to archival output? Conventional laser
printing is not it; I think the plastic ink is too sensitive
to remelting or flaking under heat or pressure.
From this perspective, ink jet looks as long-lasting as any water-soluble
dipped-pen ink that's survived for a few hundred years depending on conditions.
Are archival ink-jet photo papers more resin-coated?
Cartridges with archival quality ink have been available for Deskjets for
a couple of years now. Expensive.
William Donzelli
aw288 at osfn.org
25 May
25 May
12:02 a.m.
New subject: zip
From: "William Donzelli" <aw288 at osfn.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 10:48 PM
Just make sure you use an acid free paper.
Randy
www.s100-manuals.com
Are there any
new developments in computer-driven printing technology
that bring us closer to archival output? Conventional laser
printing is not it; I think the plastic ink is too sensitive
to remelting or flaking under heat or pressure.
From this perspective, ink jet looks as long-lasting as any
water-soluble
dipped-pen ink that's survived for a few hundred years depending on
conditions.
Are archival ink-jet photo papers more resin-coated?
Cartridges with archival quality ink have been available for Deskjets for
a couple of years now. Expensive.
William Donzelli
aw288 at osfn.org
1:03 a.m.
New subject: zip
On Tue, 24 May 2005, John Foust wrote:
From this perspective, ink jet looks as long-lasting
as any
water-soluble dipped-pen ink that's survived for a few hundred years
depending on conditions. Are archival ink-jet photo papers more
resin-coated?
I am pretty sure you can now get archival ink carthridges for inkjet
printers. Be prepared to pay even more than you normally do for these.
Yep, here's some:
http://www.box-shift.co.uk/cgi-bin/digitalink.asp?r=1
Are dye-sublimation printers (see
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question583.htm ) a good shot for
printing technologies that might be good for some crazy scheme like
Paperbytes that'll store digital data on paper?
I doubt the concept, but I am curious how dye sublimation holds out vs.
laser toner, which does outgas and tends to stick adjacent pages together
over time.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
10:18 a.m.
New subject: Archival Printing (was: zip
Rumor has it that Vintage Computer Festival may have mentioned these words:
On Tue, 24 May 2005, John Foust wrote:
> Are dye-sublimation printers (see
> http://science.howstuffworks.com/question583.htm ) a good shot for
> printing technologies that might be good for some crazy scheme like
> Paperbytes that'll store digital data on paper?
No, but not due to their media itself; it's due to the fact that the dyes
are designed to spread a bit when they hit the media; and barcodes &
whatnot wouldn't look very crisp. Mine also has a resolution of 314 dpi
(and that's considered quite good), so it's not what you'd call
"hi-rez" by
today's standards... They call it "continuous-tone" printing.
I doubt the concept, but I am curious how dye
sublimation holds out vs.
laser toner, which does outgas and tends to stick adjacent pages together
over time.
It holds out exceptionally well. My printer spits out museum-archival
quality prints; rated for a _minimum_ of 60 years on the wall, cared for
well they could easy hit 100+, and waterproof to boot.
The printer was durned near $1k, and the media & ribbon zings me $2 per
8x10 print.
But it makes nice pictures! ;-)
For medium to low-res barcodes, I'd think it would be better to use an
older 24-pin dot-matrix with good ribbons.... but that's just a guess.
Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger | "Profile, don't speculate."
SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers | Daniel J. Bernstein
zmerch at 30below.com |
2:29 p.m.
New subject: zip
Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
I don't know what it's like in your worldview,
but mine is
filled with total morons, and I have little hope for the
future.
And that's just this list :-)
So tell me then how to read the information from a
Quipu.
It's a simple device: just a bunch of multi-colored knotted
string. If you can figure this out, there's a huge community
of archaeologists who study the Incas who would erect a
permanent shrine for you to celebrate your name for all
eternity.
The shrine may last a long time but within a few hundred
years they'll just forget how to read for whom it was
erected!
Antonio
--
---------------
Antonio Carlini arcarlini at iee.org
3:34 p.m.
New subject: zip
Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
So tell me then how to read the information from a
Quipu. It's a simple
device: just a bunch of multi-colored knotted string. If you can figure
this out, there's a huge community of archaeologists who study the Incas
who would erect a permanent shrine for you to celebrate your name for all
eternity.
This is my point. The quipu was apparently their equivalent of our
spreadsheet. They were easy for them to use, and easily understood.
They aren't even "compressed", "tarred", or "zipped",
but still lost.
Once many could "write"/read them, and they were meant for long
term archival use (at least many seem to have been archived). As
easy as it was for them, and as important as they thought these
documents were, we are unable to read them.
They thought it was good for long term storage, but we haven't a clue
as to how to read them. What is so different about computer archives,
no matter how simple it seems to us, that ours wouldn't suffer the
same fate.
The ancient Egyptians were by all measures a fairly
advanced society for
their place in history, yet the only reason we know how to read their
heiroglyphic writings is because we found teh Rosetta Stone that basically
translated it for us. Again, you cannot assume English will be known in
the future.
Same point. The Egyptians thought it was good enough, and easy
enough, for use as a long term archive (see all the obelisks they
made). We still lost the understanding of how to understand them.
How much simpler can you get than "cartoons" carved in stone?
Yet we still lost the ability to read them for a thousand+ years.
Will there be a Rosetta stone to help future people to
understand a long lost CP/M archive? I don't care how
"simple" you think a storage format is, it won't help it
in the long run.
The archive should be for our own use, not some theoretical
idiot 2000 years from now trying to boot a Kaypro. He's
probably going to have a whole different set of problems
with an archive than we could conceive; like locating
the "any" key.
3:49 p.m.
New subject: zip
So far, no-one has mentioned this archival method:
Bundled Simulator + OS + Application + File
The idea is that the file could be viewed with the actual
creating software, in a "ship in a bottle" VR-computer
sence.
What would be useful here is a Universal platform on
which to build simulators, and this platform would be
supplied on any new architecture through to any future.
Otherwise, people might be stuck with 90 levels of
simulator running simulator, etc.
And you thought You had nightmares.
John A.
4:05 p.m.
New subject: zip
From: "John Allain" <allain at panix.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 2:49 PM
So far, no-one has mentioned this archival method:
Bundled Simulator + OS + Application + File
The idea is that the file could be viewed with the actual
creating software, in a "ship in a bottle" VR-computer
sence.
What would be useful here is a Universal platform on
which to build simulators, and this platform would be
supplied on any new architecture through to any future.
Otherwise, people might be stuck with 90 levels of
simulator running simulator, etc.
And you thought You had nightmares.
John A.
By strangest coincidence I was writing a similar thing to the 1st part while
this was being posted.
I keep emulators for as many systems as possible. I need to post more (I
have at least 4 posted).
Right now I post (in order of date I started posting):
Jim Battle's SOL-20's solace emulator.
Mike Noel's AM100 emulator.
Simon Cran's MYZ80 emulator.
Dave Dunfield's Horizon emulator.
I highly recommend these emulators and many more (like Rich Cini's Altair
emulator).
I completely disagree on the idea of a homogenous platform. I think having
a million ideas on how to explain how someone's favorite hardware platform
gives more insight into it.
Randy
www.s100-manuals.com
4:34 p.m.
New subject: zip
John Allain wrote:
What would be useful here is a Universal platform on
which to build simulators, and this platform would be
supplied on any new architecture through to any future.
Jules Richardson wrote:
Isn't that just Java?
Which one? I have Java programs that worked fine in 1996
that won't even compile now. Java is a moving target ("write
once, debug everywhere"), so it's not particularly suited
to any kind of long-term archival effort.
3:53 p.m.
New subject: zip
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Handy" <kth at srv.net>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: zip
Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
Now it's time to come back to the true definition of a library:
A library is a living archive. It is meant to archive the data and keep up
to date with what it takes to make sense of it.
We tend to thing of the most common form of the library, the library we are
used to entering: The lending library.
While lending libraries are the most common the act of lending books is not
the original concept nor the only use of libraries.
Libraries are a repository of knowledge.
The trick to archiving classic computer knowledge to gather it into an
archive and keep librarians that constantly try to keep the most current
Rosetta stone with it. As newer archival tools become available it is up to
the librarian/archivist to transfer the data preserving its knowledge.
It truly doesn't matter how it is archived but common sense is a good way to
go:
Use multiple methods, I keep my archives on the internet, multiple
computers, and CD's. On the computers I keep the packaged and include the
tools to unarchive them.
Use current tools so people in the future don't have to be able to read
Sanskrit to unarchive them.
When newer better tools come out unarchive the packages and repackage under
the new tools. Currently all over the world scientists are constantly
repairing books that keep deteriorating, we need to do the same with our
archives.
When emulators that work with the archival data are available add them to
your archive so people in the future have a chance to understand how the
hardware is supposed to work.
Randy
www.s100-manuals.com
So tell me then how to read the information from a
Quipu. It's a simple
device: just a bunch of multi-colored knotted string. If you can figure
this out, there's a huge community of archaeologists who study the Incas
who would erect a permanent shrine for you to celebrate your name for all
eternity.
This is my point. The quipu was apparently their equivalent of our
spreadsheet. They were easy for them to use, and easily understood.
They aren't even "compressed", "tarred", or "zipped",
but still lost.
Once many could "write"/read them, and they were meant for long
term archival use (at least many seem to have been archived). As
easy as it was for them, and as important as they thought these
documents were, we are unable to read them.
They thought it was good for long term storage, but we haven't a clue
as to how to read them. What is so different about computer archives,
no matter how simple it seems to us, that ours wouldn't suffer the
same fate.
The ancient Egyptians were by all measures a
fairly advanced society for
their place in history, yet the only reason we know how to read their
heiroglyphic writings is because we found teh Rosetta Stone that
basically
translated it for us. Again, you cannot assume English will be known in
the future.
Same point. The Egyptians thought it was good enough, and easy
enough, for use as a long term archive (see all the obelisks they made).
We still lost the understanding of how to understand them. How much
simpler can you get than "cartoons" carved in stone?
Yet we still lost the ability to read them for a thousand+ years.
Will there be a Rosetta stone to help future people to understand a long
lost CP/M archive? I don't care how "simple" you think a storage format
is, it won't help it in the long run.
The archive should be for our own use, not some theoretical
idiot 2000 years from now trying to boot a Kaypro. He's
probably going to have a whole different set of problems with an archive
than we could conceive; like locating
the "any" key.
4:12 p.m.
New subject: zip
On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 13:34 -0600, Kevin Handy wrote:
I don't care how "simple" you think a
storage format is, it won't help it
in the long run.
Ahh, but doesn't that simplicity minimise the chances of someone being
unable to understand the format in x years? Presumably, for every
example of a language that we can no longer decipher, there are far more
that we can? (whether through simplicity or a consistant design)
The archive should be for our own use, not some
theoretical
idiot 2000 years from now trying to boot a Kaypro. He's
probably going to have a whole different set of problems
with an archive than we could conceive; like locating
the "any" key.
I would expect that in a few thousand years, the interest is going to be
in the data that is archived, not the content that is binary
(executable) in nature. Funnily enough, it's almost going to be the
other way around for the next 50-100 years; it's the binaries that
people are interested in preserving, whilst the backups of Fred Foo's
accounts get deleted!
cheers
Jules
7:17 p.m.
New subject: zip
On Wed, 25 May 2005, Kevin Handy wrote:
But will you agree that it at least makes things easier if the archives
are in a plain format? Would the Rosetta Stone have been any help if the
heiroglyphics had been transcribed to papyrus, then rolled up and stuffed
in a sack to make them easier to distribute and store? No, it would not.
The papyrus would have crumbled to dust.
Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
Actually, your point was this:
So tell me then how to read the information from a
Quipu. It's a simple
device: just a bunch of multi-colored knotted string. If you can figure
this out, there's a huge community of archaeologists who study the Incas
who would erect a permanent shrine for you to celebrate your name for all
eternity.
This is my point. These stupid people won't have any concept of a
computer, so it is
unlikely that they will be able to read a tape, cd, etc. You will have
to carve the data on stone blocks in foot high letters.
You were being facetious of course, but I was not.
The quipu was apparently their equivalent of our
spreadsheet. They were easy for them to use, and easily understood.
They aren't even "compressed", "tarred", or "zipped",
but still lost.
Once many could "write"/read them, and they were meant for long
term archival use (at least many seem to have been archived). As
easy as it was for them, and as important as they thought these
documents were, we are unable to read them.
I would imagine you'd agree that we are pretty smart and that the Quipu is
pretty simple, yet we still have not successfully decoded their meaning.
They thought it was good for long term storage, but we
haven't a clue
as to how to read them. What is so different about computer archives,
no matter how simple it seems to us, that ours wouldn't suffer the
same fate.
So getting back to the point, why make archives even more complex by
wrapping the riddle in an enigma?
The ancient
Egyptians were by all measures a fairly advanced society for
their place in history, yet the only reason we know how to read their
heiroglyphic writings is because we found teh Rosetta Stone that basically
translated it for us. Again, you cannot assume English will be known in
the future.
Same point. The Egyptians thought it was good enough, and easy
enough, for use as a long term archive (see all the obelisks they
made). We still lost the understanding of how to understand them.
How much simpler can you get than "cartoons" carved in stone?
Yet we still lost the ability to read them for a thousand+ years.
Will there be a Rosetta stone to help future people to
understand a long lost CP/M archive? I don't care how
"simple" you think a storage format is, it won't help it
in the long run. The archive should be for our own use, not some
theoretical idiot 2000
years from now trying to boot a Kaypro. He's probably going to have a
whole different set of problems with an archive than we could conceive;
like locating the "any" key.
Right, so don't make the archives more complex than they need to be.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
26 May
26 May
9:33 a.m.
New subject: zip
At 06:17 PM 5/25/2005, Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
I would imagine you'd agree that we are pretty
smart and that the Quipu is
pretty simple, yet we still have not successfully decoded their meaning.
Although I agree with KISS principles, I'm not buying the validity of
the quipu as a good analogy in this situation. I'm no expert on quipu.
Haven't read the books. There seems to be a cottage industry in
theories about them. With 20th century computer data, though,
if some future soul is interested in it, an understanding of ASCII
and probably English will be assumed.
The point about the quipu is that their language and their encoding
has been lost, and there seems to be many theories that assume
they were purposefully encrypting the data and making it subject
to retrieval and encoding through specialized human interpreters
because of their perceived need for security and confidentiality
of the information. Some seem to believe they're a mixture of
mneumonic and numeric data.
Who's to say that the future scholar is human? Isn't it more likely
that the future scholar will be a machine, a mutated Google
hell-bent on spidering 20th century trivia?
- John
10:36 a.m.
New subject: zip
>>>> "John" == John Foust
<jfoust at threedee.com> writes:
John> At 06:17 PM 5/25/2005, Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
> I would imagine you'd agree that we are pretty
smart and that the
> Quipu is pretty simple, yet we still have not successfully decoded
> their meaning.
John> Although I agree with KISS principles, I'm not buying the
John> validity of the quipu as a good analogy in this situation. I'm
John> no expert on quipu. Haven't read the books. There seems to be
John> a cottage industry in theories about them. With 20th century
John> computer data, though, if some future soul is interested in it,
John> an understanding of ASCII and probably English will be assumed.
Sure. But do you want to assume that these are still known?
There are plenty of examples of languages and writing systems where
this is no longer true (Etruscan, Easter Island). In some cases
(Etruscan) the script is clear enough but that isn't sufficient to
figure out the meaning. And there are other cases where language and
writing were not known until some *very* smart people spent large
quantities of brainpower sorting things out. Don't consider the
Rosetta stone, that was a relatively simple job (that stone has the
Greek translation right on it). Consider instead Linear B, or
Sumerian cuneiform.
Unless you want to assume that the language and encoding are NOT
forgotten between now and the time when someone wants to read the
archives, you have to use the Quipu (or Etruscan, or Sumerian, or
Linear B) examples. It's worth while (and interesting) to read some
of the literature on those subjects (for example the books by Chadwick
on Linear B -- short yet very clear). You'll discover that this stuff
isn't easy. It is not necessary to assume that people will be stupid
-- instead, assume they are very smart, but they have to rediscover
the basics from the record we're creating for them.
See also http://www.longnow.org/10klibrary/libIdeas.htm
paul
12:18 p.m.
New subject: zip
On Thu, 26 May 2005, Paul Koning wrote:
isn't easy. It is not necessary to assume that
people will be stupid
-- instead, assume they are very smart, but they have to rediscover
the basics from the record we're creating for them.
This is a better way to express what I have been trying to say. I don't
literally mean that we should assume future people are stupid, but do
assume that they won't have the benefit of knowing certain things and
therefore we should make our archives as simple as is practical. This is
common sense as far as I'm concerned.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
12:13 p.m.
New subject: zip
On Thu, 26 May 2005, John Foust wrote:
The point about the quipu is that their language and
their encoding
has been lost, and there seems to be many theories that assume
they were purposefully encrypting the data and making it subject
to retrieval and encoding through specialized human interpreters
because of their perceived need for security and confidentiality
of the information. Some seem to believe they're a mixture of
mneumonic and numeric data.
I've never read anywhere that the quipus were purposefully encrypted.
Only priests and such were allowed to know how to read them, that's all.
We actually do know how to "read" the information: the systems of knots
used to encode numbers was decoded long ago (they're actually encoded as
decimal!) But we still don't know what those numbers mean. Numbers
encoded onto a string made of alpaca's wool might represent how many
alpacas are in a particular herd. Or a brown string might represent
baskets of potatoes, etc. Also, the numbers might represent verses in a
song or even musical notes. But any information that may have explained
the color coding scheme has destroyed by the stupid Spaniards.
Who's to say that the future scholar is human?
Isn't it more likely
that the future scholar will be a machine, a mutated Google
hell-bent on spidering 20th century trivia?
Or maybe it'll be searching for cool music and games to download...
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
27 May
27 May
1:20 a.m.
New subject: zip
On Thu, 26 May 2005, John Foust wrote:
Although I agree with KISS principles, I'm not
buying the validity of
the quipu as a good analogy in this situation.
[...] There seems to be a cottage industry in
theories about them.
Actually, they are a really good example!
The point about them is their use was fully embedded in some local
culture. The medium, the content, the context, nearly everything
is gone. Whatever the use was, we don't need the technology; we
have nice nylon rope, thank you. The cultural embedment is what
is interesting.
If tomorrow morning a quipo rosetta stone were found, I doubt it
would make all that much difference.
Even if it became known that quipo were harvest/hunt/marriage/etc
demo data, there's not enough accompanying contextual data (date?
season? year? owner? gender? farmer? king?) to render the content
very meaningful.
The approximate technological implementation and interface (eg.
knots) are important; reading it seems less so.
Quipos had meaning (presumably) only within their local culture.
So will ZORK and everything else.
19 May
19 May
10:34 a.m.
On Wed, 18 May 2005, Randy McLaughlin wrote:
Lately I've been using self-extracting zip files.
The reason is that just
by renaming the file from *.exe to *.zip most decompressors handle it just
fine and for 99% of the people it includes the software to decompress it.
Assuming you have a working PC or emulator to run it.
By posting exe files I've gotten questions talking
about trojan horses, or
they aren't running windows. I always say no matter what archive you
download always have anti-virus software running plus all you have to do is
rename the file to use it on most decompressors (yes it is also mentioned at
the bottom of the download pages).
Anti-virus software, when it works at all, doesn't work against a trojan
horse.
You can not plan on what is the next best archival
tool and you can't
please everyone. Use what you have and try to make it so most people can
handle it one way or another.
My suggestion is to stay away from proprietary compressed binary formats.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
1:35 p.m.
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 07:34:24AM -0700, Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
*Everything* is a proprietary binary format, and in the grand scheme
of things, compression is simply a binary encoding. That's why I
think damning a certain archiving program/format just because of the
platform it runs onis silly.
I see people on the thread complaining about having to bundle a
windows emulator with each archive. Excuse me? Let's look at some
popular formats: TAR, ZIP, RAR all have source-code unarchivers.
Which means they can run on any machine with a C compiler. So
what's with all the paranoia? Just use whatever works as long as
more than one major platform can extract it.
(Not directed at Sellam, just commenting on all thread participants.)
--
Jim Leonard http://www.oldskool.org/ Email: trixter at oldskool.org
Like PC games? Help support the MobyGames database: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or taste a slice of the demoscene at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
You can not plan on what is the next best
archival tool and you can't
please everyone. Use what you have and try to make it so most people can
handle it one way or another.
My suggestion is to stay away from proprietary compressed binary formats.
1:43 p.m.
On Thu, 19 May 2005, Jim Leonard wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 07:34:24AM -0700, Vintage
Computer Festival wrote:
*Everything* is a proprietary binary format, and in the grand scheme
of things, compression is simply a binary encoding. That's why I
think damning a certain archiving program/format just because of the
platform it runs onis silly.
This misses the point entirely. With a ZIP archive you are munging the
raw data into something it is not. I guess if you wanted to be psycho you
could also consider ASCII to be a "proprietary binary format", but 40
years of history and standardization would disagree with you.
See Dwight's last reply re: archivist standards. Putting stuff in a ZIP
file is NOT archiving.
You can not plan on what is the next best
archival tool and you can't
please everyone. Use what you have and try to make it so most people can
handle it one way or another.
My suggestion is to stay away from proprietary compressed binary formats. I see people on the thread complaining about having to
bundle a
windows emulator with each archive. Excuse me? Let's look at some
popular formats: TAR, ZIP, RAR all have source-code unarchivers.
Which means they can run on any machine with a C compiler. So
what's with all the paranoia? Just use whatever works as long as
more than one major platform can extract it.
For now. What about 1 year from now? 5 years? 10 years? 50 years? 100
years? 500 years?
Think LONGTERM.
(Not directed at Sellam, just commenting on all thread
participants.)
Ain't no thang ;)
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
2:06 p.m.
From: "Vintage Computer Festival" <vcf at siconic.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 12:43 PM
There is no guaranteed method to go 500 years, the only reasonable thing is
to go with the best available.
In this case best means a format understood by the majority.
In the future ZIP formats will be better understood than any other current
format for the simple reason there are more zip files to examine than any
other.
Packaging data understood by a tiny fraction of the world guarantees that it
will be near impossible to use in the future.
Randy
www.s100-manuals.com
On Thu, 19 May 2005, Jim Leonard wrote:
<snip>
*Everything*
is a proprietary binary format, and in the grand scheme
of things, compression is simply a binary encoding. That's why I
think damning a certain archiving program/format just because of the
platform it runs onis silly.
This misses the point entirely. With a ZIP archive you are munging the
raw data into something it is not. I guess if you wanted to be psycho you
could also consider ASCII to be a "proprietary binary format", but 40
years of history and standardization would disagree with you.
See Dwight's last reply re: archivist standards. Putting stuff in a ZIP
file is NOT archiving.
I see people on the thread complaining about
having to bundle a
windows emulator with each archive. Excuse me? Let's look at some
popular formats: TAR, ZIP, RAR all have source-code unarchivers.
Which means they can run on any machine with a C compiler. So
what's with all the paranoia? Just use whatever works as long as
more than one major platform can extract it.
For now. What about 1 year from now? 5 years? 10 years? 50 years? 100
years? 500 years?
Think LONGTERM.
(Not directed at Sellam, just commenting on all
thread participants.)
Ain't no thang ;)
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer
Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger
http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage
mputers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at
http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
2:10 p.m.
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 01:06:21PM -0500, Randy McLaughlin wrote:
There is no guaranteed method to go 500 years, the
only reasonable thing is
to go with the best available.
In this case best means a format understood by the majority.
In the future ZIP formats will be better understood than any other current
format for the simple reason there are more zip files to examine than any
other.
My point exactly. Thank you for so eloquently wording it.
--
Jim Leonard http://www.oldskool.org/ Email: trixter at oldskool.org
Like PC games? Help support the MobyGames database: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or taste a slice of the demoscene at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
3:15 p.m.
On Thu, 19 May 2005, Randy McLaughlin wrote:
There is no guaranteed method to go 500 years, the
only reasonable thing is
to go with the best available.
I'll interpret that to mean no compression, no archive formats, etc. Just
offer the actual content.
In this case best means a format understood by the
majority.
Right, which is no format at all.
In the future ZIP formats will be better understood
than any other current
format for the simple reason there are more zip files to examine than any
other.
That's a very risky prediction.
Packaging data understood by a tiny fraction of the
world guarantees that it
will be near impossible to use in the future.
So don't package it at all.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
7:22 p.m.
In this case best means a format understood by the
majority.
Jsut becasue something is popular doesn't mean it's well understood. I'll
bet most people who use Winzip or whatever haven't a clue as to what a
zip file actually consists of.
In the future ZIP formats will be better understood than any other current
format for the simple reason there are more zip files to examine than any
other.
But I'll bet now that more people understand the internals of linux than
understand the internals of Windows, because the former is 'open' and
documented, the latter isn't. Even though there are many more Windows
machines than linux machines :-(
-tony
2:09 p.m.
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 10:43:09AM -0700, Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
LONGTERM the information will have been translated to new
media/medium by then. When you want to read the constitution of the
US, do you travel all the way to Washington, D.C. or do you look it
up online? Is the online version any less properly archived?
If LONGTERM is truly a concern then why is the information being
stored as ASCII data files at all? I can think of a lot more
durable information transport mechanisms than hard disks or magnetic
tape...
:-)
--
Jim Leonard http://www.oldskool.org/ Email: trixter at oldskool.org
Like PC games? Help support the MobyGames database: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or taste a slice of the demoscene at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
See Dwight's last reply re: archivist standards.
Putting stuff in a ZIP
file is NOT archiving.
For me, archiving has always been about preserving information. It
has had nothing to do with the transport mechanism of that
information. ZIP is a transport mechanism; an encoding of
information, just like an ASCII file is an encoding of information.
If I have an old hardware manual, and I scan it, OCR it
(accurately!) to text, format the text in the same way it is typeset
in the book (ie. to preserve tables, equations, etc.) and do so via
HTML, and put it on the web -- did I not just archive the book? If
all of the information is available, what's the big deal? What is
lost in the translation?
I see people
on the thread complaining about having to bundle a
windows emulator with each archive. Excuse me? Let's look at some
popular formats: TAR, ZIP, RAR all have source-code unarchivers.
Which means they can run on any machine with a C compiler. So
what's with all the paranoia? Just use whatever works as long as
more than one major platform can extract it.
For now. What about 1 year from now? 5 years? 10 years? 50 years? 100
years? 500 years?
Think LONGTERM. (Not directed
at Sellam, just commenting on all thread participants.)
Ain't no thang ;) 
2:46 p.m.
Jim Leonard wrote:
LONGTERM the information will have been translated to
new
media/medium by then. When you want to read the constitution of the
US, do you travel all the way to Washington, D.C. or do you look it
up online? Is the online version any less properly archived?
Of course! the online version is completely missing the map on the back
side. =)
--
Tim Riker - http://rikers.org/ - TimR at Debian.org
Embedded Linux Technologist
BZFlag maintainer - http://BZFlag.org/ - for fun!
3:21 p.m.
On Thu, 19 May 2005, Jim Leonard wrote:
LONGTERM the information will have been translated to new
media/medium by then.
There is no guarantee of this. None whatsoever. Unless you can predict
the future, in which case why are you wasting your time with me when you
should be out controlling the world? ;)
:-)
:)
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 10:43:09AM -0700, Vintage
Computer Festival wrote:
You preserved the information. Well done. But by putting it inside a ZIP
archive and making THAT your distribution medium, you've made a fantastic
error.
See Dwight's last reply re: archivist
standards. Putting stuff in a ZIP
file is NOT archiving.
For me, archiving has always been about preserving information. It
has had nothing to do with the transport mechanism of that
information. ZIP is a transport mechanism; an encoding of
information, just like an ASCII file is an encoding of information.
If I have an old hardware manual, and I scan it, OCR it
(accurately!) to text, format the text in the same way it is typeset
in the book (ie. to preserve tables, equations, etc.) and do so via
HTML, and put it on the web -- did I not just archive the book? If
all of the information is available, what's the big deal? What is
lost in the translation? I see people on the thread complaining about having to
bundle a
windows emulator with each archive. Excuse me? Let's look at some
popular formats: TAR, ZIP, RAR all have source-code unarchivers.
Which means they can run on any machine with a C compiler. So
what's with all the paranoia? Just use whatever works as long as
more than one major platform can extract it.
For now. What about 1 year from now? 5 years? 10 years? 50 years? 100
years? 500 years?
Think LONGTERM. If LONGTERM is truly a concern then why is the
information being
stored as ASCII data files at all?
Perhaps because ASCII is "the bottom"? There's no where else to go.
I can think of a lot more durable information
transport mechanisms than
hard disks or magnetic tape...
With denser data storage?
(Not directed at Sellam, just commenting on all thread
participants.)
Ain't no thang ;)
1:47 p.m.
Jim Leonard wrote:
Which means they can run on any machine with a C
compiler. So
what's with all the paranoia? Just use whatever works as long
as more than one major platform can extract it.
What's C? Will that be less dead in 100 years than Algol is today?
I know Algol's not completely dead - but it's certainly declining ...
How long before C is no longer available everywhere? How long before
your source no longer compiles without significant effort?
I have no problems with including a ready made unarchiver, but you
also must include a textual specification of the archive format.
After another fifty years have passed and the state of the art has
advanced sufficiently, you can upgrade the archive to include a
povably correct specification :-)
Antonio
--
---------------
Antonio Carlini arcarlini at iee.org
2:12 p.m.
On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 18:47 +0100, Antonio Carlini wrote:
Jim Leonard wrote:
Why not include full specs for the computer the data is supposed to be
on as well as how to build the computer -- and don't forget to include
an ascii chart and an english dictionary so they can figure out the
instructions!
The format issue suffers from the same problem as the media issue does:
there is no such thing is an eternal format. To put it simply: its the
content, stupid.
We're not building a time capsule (to everyone who's been complaining
about data accessibility 500 years out). I see it as an archive in the
LIBRARY sense of the word. Who is the target audience, really? Is it
some future generation (only) which might have no interest in CP/M -- or
is it collectors NOW who would like to preserve the content for
themselves and the future? I think its the latter.
The bundling file formats are not going to ever be designed for the
future correctly. Ever. We should have something that is useful today
and upgradable in the future. Once the data is extracted and collected
into an archive, "updating" it to whatever format the future uses will
be a simple as:
for n in *.zip; do
mkdir temp
cd temp
unzip ../$n
newarchive ../whatever.new .
cd ..
rm -rf temp
done
(hehe, since unix and sh will live forever :)
The same holds true for the meta data portions of the package. If we
use XML or plain text or whatever, its a simple matter of programming to
convert it to the Format of the Future(tm).
The trick is to make it comprehensive enough to provide the information
which may be needed later and easily updated for future systems.
Brian
Which means they can run on any machine with a C
compiler. So
what's with all the paranoia? Just use whatever works as long
as more than one major platform can extract it.
What's C? Will that be less dead in 100 years than Algol is today?
I know Algol's not completely dead - but it's certainly declining ...
How long before C is no longer available everywhere? How long before
your source no longer compiles without significant effort?
I have no problems with including a ready made unarchiver, but you
also must include a textual specification of the archive format.
5:09 p.m.
New subject: zip
Antonio Carlini wrote:
Jim Leonard wrote:
What's CP/M? Will that be less dead in 100 years than Algol is today?
Which means they can run on any machine with a C
compiler. So
what's with all the paranoia? Just use whatever works as long
as more than one major platform can extract it.
What's C? Will that be less dead in 100 years than Algol is today?
I know Algol's not completely dead - but it's
certainly declining ...
How long before C is no longer available everywhere? How long before
your source no longer compiles without significant effort?
So we should store the images using a sub-atomic scan of the disks,
so that it can be reproduced back to an identical copy.
Did people 500 years ago archive information using easily recognizable
pictographs because people 500 years from then (today) will have lost all
capability to read?
Do you believe future people will be that much stupider than people
are today, and that all information about computers will have been
totally lost?
If they lose and then rediscover computers, then they may have to go
through the same process that we have had to go through to read
Egyption writings.
Or, they may think it is just too primitive to care about.
I have no problems with including a ready made
unarchiver, but you
also must include a textual specification of the archive format.
After another fifty years have passed and the state of the art has
advanced sufficiently, you can upgrade the archive to include a
povably correct specification :-)
Make the archive useful to us, now. Let people 500 years from now
figure it out for themselves.
5:32 p.m.
New subject: zip
>>>> "Kevin" == Kevin Handy
<kth at srv.net> writes:
Kevin> So we should store the images using a sub-atomic scan of the
Kevin> disks, so that it can be reproduced back to an identical copy.
Kevin> Did people 500 years ago archive information using easily
Kevin> recognizable pictographs because people 500 years from then
Kevin> (today) will have lost all capability to read?
Kevin> Do you believe future people will be that much stupider than
Kevin> people are today, and that all information about computers
Kevin> will have been totally lost?
Kevin> If they lose and then rediscover computers, then they may have
Kevin> to go through the same process that we have had to go through
Kevin> to read Egyption writings.
Kevin> Or, they may think it is just too primitive to care about.
Probably not, if they are at all like us.
The question is: do you want to assume a continuous record and
knowledge, or do you not want to assume that?
Examples (from language studies) of the former: Greek, Hebrew -- and
of the latter: Sumerian, Etruscan, Easter Island writing.
Egyptian was read given knowledge of Greek, it was not deciphered on
its own.
Sometimes you can decipher things from internal data, if you are lucky
to have enough material and enough hints pointing to other stuff. The
decipherment of Linear B was an example (when it was done it turned
out to be Greek, but that wasn't the starting assumption).
Then again, sometimes you're not that lucky, which is why the Easter
Island writing remains undeciphered to this day -- and may well remain
so forever.
You can rely on the skill and the luck of those who come after us --
which is what happened in the past (because it wasn't considered). Or
we can do explicit planning to improve the odds. Again, I like the
work of the Long Now foundation because it seems like a fascinating
example of what you get when you really dig hard into these questions
and assume as little as possible.
paul
23 May
23 May
7:03 p.m.
New subject: zip
On Thu, 19 May 2005, Paul Koning wrote:
You can rely on the skill and the luck of those who
come after us --
which is what happened in the past (because it wasn't considered). Or
we can do explicit planning to improve the odds. Again, I like the
work of the Long Now foundation because it seems like a fascinating
example of what you get when you really dig hard into these questions
and assume as little as possible.
This sort of gets to the heart of the matter. Why make it challenging for
future generations when we have the wisdom, intelligence and means today
to preserve enough information for future generations to eliminate the
guessing. Sure, mysteries are fun, but why create mysteries
unnecessarily?
Save all the information when it's still fresh and with as much supporting
information as possible. Assume everyone in the future will be more
stupid than you, and with crappier technology.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
19 May
19 May
5:38 p.m.
New subject: zip
From: "Kevin Handy" <kth at srv.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 4:09 PM
<snip>
Do you believe future people will be that much
stupider than people
are today, and that all information about computers will have been
totally lost?
<snip>
Have you seen the direction of the educational system?
Enough said when a college graduate today can't light a light bulb give a
battery, wire, and bulb.
;-)
Randy
www.s100-manuals.com
23 May
23 May
4:36 p.m.
New subject: zip
On Thu, 19 May 2005, Kevin Handy wrote:
Do you believe future people will be that much
stupider than people
are today, and that all information about computers will have been
totally lost?
I think this assumption needs to be made. It's safer.
Make the archive useful to us, now. Let people 500
years from now
figure it out for themselves.
That's not the definition of an "archive". You're thinking of a
library.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
5:21 p.m.
New subject: zip
> Make the archive useful to us, now. Let people
500 years from now
> figure it out for themselves.
That's not the definition of an
"archive". You're thinking of a library.
No, archives need to be useful now too.
Making it useful to people 500 years from now is probably impossible.
(Look at the ideographic signs they invented to put at long-term nuclear
waste sites, they eventually arrived at something but they have a lot
of constraints).
To me the distinction is that archives usually have a narrow field of
coverage while a library has a broader view. Even that doesn't work
well (look at the "Presidential libraries") in common usage.
Tim.
19 May
19 May
11:58 a.m.
New subject: Disk archival techniques
With all this talk about archiving and live media storage I
just flashed back again to the 80's and the seemingly lost
concept of a Read-Only hard drive. This would be great
for virus proofing long-term data today. Anybody know of
an add-on hack for IDE or SCSI that will do this? Envisioned
is a ribbon cable with a line or two cut but I imagine if it was
that simple people would already make them.
John A.
12:44 p.m.
New subject: Disk archival techniques
On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 11:58 -0400, John Allain wrote:
With all this talk about archiving and live media
storage I
just flashed back again to the 80's and the seemingly lost
concept of a Read-Only hard drive. This would be great
for virus proofing long-term data today. Anybody know of
an add-on hack for IDE or SCSI that will do this? Envisioned
is a ribbon cable with a line or two cut but I imagine if it was
that simple people would already make them.
Most older SCSI drives had a WP jumper; newer ones maybe do too. I can't
remember if WP is brought out to one of the pins on a drive with an SCA
connector though...
<fx: fossicks>
Hmm, it doesn't appear to be.
I've given up on tape and optical media for storage.... I backup and
mirror to several drives that are normally kept off-line. I suppose if I
only wanted read-only access, I'd mount the drives that way from
software :)
cheers
Jules
9:55 a.m.
>>>> "Jim" == Jim Leonard
<trixter at oldskool.org> writes:
Jim> Dwight K. Elvey wrote:
> It seems that may of you are missing the point.
The archives are
> intended to be useable in say 500 years ( moved to future media
> ). Any proprietary application like WinRAR is useless for this
> purpose.
Jim> I think that *you* are missing the point that *no* archive can
Jim> last that long except maybe paper.
There are others. See www.longnow.org.
paul
7001
days inactive
7010
days old
60 comments
22 participants
participants (22)
-
a.carlini＠ntlworld.com -
allain＠panix.com -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
aw288＠osfn.org -
bdwheele＠indiana.edu -
cctalk＠randy482.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
dwight.elvey＠amd.com -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk -
kth＠srv.net -
mouse＠Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA -
news＠computercollector.com -
pat＠computer-refuge.org -
pkoning＠equallogic.com -
shoppa_classiccmp＠trailing-edge.com -
Tim＠rikers.org -
tomj＠wps.com -
trixter＠oldskool.org -
vcf＠siconic.com -
zmerch＠30below.com