I'm not sure I buy this argument; it seems to me to be based on too narrow a view of the universe of different use cases.
I certainly haven't seen *all* of them myself, but in general, I've seen enough to be skeptical of "tape can't do it arguments.
And LTO-10 is 48TB/cart. Uncompressed, I assume.
LTO-9 goes to 25TB/cart, LTO-10 goes to 48TB.
Already announced.
And wouldn't it be interesting to know if that study was based on cartridge count or capacity?
Of *course* the cart count is going down, not *everyone's* data storage needs expand without bounds, and newer larger sizes imply some catch-up.
Magtape is the only viable medium for things which are actually "backups" as that term is understood in the professional IT arena. Every other possible medium for backups has faults which cripple it for one or more of the requirements which backups are required to fulfill -- primarily that's length of storage, but there are lot of other fun failure modes.
Sure, spinning magnetic storage, optical media, and flash drives each have some advantages for specific purposes.
But go pull the post-close EOY General Journal from 1996 off of one, I dare you.
And if you think that's an overly strict requirement, a) you're probably wrong, and b) I can come up with lots more that you won't.
My commercial backup guidelines are these:
You need it backed up on at least 4 pieces of media, of at least 3 different types, in at least 2 different cities, in at least 1 different state; bumping each of those numbers up by 1 is not unreasonable.
Only one backup can be on optical media; only one can be on spinning magnetic media, whether it's powered or not (this includes the cloud, and local external HDD backups, whether powered 24/7, alternating, or pulled and shelved).
Flash media is right out, as are SSDs.
I can pull 20 year old DC3000 tapes off my shelf and read them -- as long as I have a SCSI interface for the computer in question.
GNU tar is great that way.
...every other 911 derivative for the last 50 years.
The original 911 would just swing that engine right around in front if you'd let it.
When did they become mid-engine?
(Oh: I see: *the 980* was mid.)
this is going to be as stupid as Mozilla's plan to rev a new major release of Firefox every 6 weeks.
It's easy to look at this and say "what a great idea"... but the people who do that are, nearly unanimously in my experience, people who are only responsible for 1 or 2 PC.
When you're responsible for 100 or 500 or 20,000, you come back to me and tell me how many more IT people that's going to require you to hir... oh, wait.
No; this is a *great* idea!!!
> It's easy to blame Microsoft for this, but isn't this really an issue that is intrinsic to all installed applications?
No one read John Carmack's "don't let the client control anything" screed several years back, about how gaming systems cannot let the client code *know* or *control* things, because then it could be replaced with something that would cheat on the user's behalf, by looking around corners for bad guys and such?
This is the same exact thing, as far as I can see...
Wasn't there any actual *coverage of the case* somewhere on the web that could have been linked to, Ray?
Nobody tell David Hasselhoff, ok?
I've run Zimbra for 3 years now, back to 5.0.9, which I installed for my then employer. The architectural people there have taken, right along, an attitude that I can characterize only as "RFCs? Who cares about those?"
It doesn't handle fixed-pitch well; its editor won't re-wrap (though they might have finally fixed that in 7), it doesn't uknow from RFC 2369 -- in fact, it handles mailing lists poorly in general; notably, you can't change the Reply-To in any way when replying, if you generally want HTML off (as I do), the only way to turn it on is to dive into the Preferences and switch it, then reload; same turning off...
Check for bugs filed on their bugzilla by jra@baylink.com if you want a full list of the ignominy. But in general, I would say: evaluate it pretty thoroughly to see if you can deal with its crap before deploying.
It's *very* pretty. I just don't know if it's worth the trouble.
"Yes".
Pay attention, editors.
in all their "Mafia protection racket" analogies, they didn't use the phrase "You gotta really nice lookin' business here", which nearly always precedes "It'd be a shame if something happened to it".
Nice piece, though, over all.
I don't have a problem with a developer deciding to use names like this for a package, if they want to stick their neck out.
The point here, is apparently that *the developer* wasn't sticking their neck out; someone else did it *for them*. *That*, I have a problem with.
So, y'all people shooting at the name itself? That's a strawman; please look at what's actually offensive here.
"I think the Internet contains things which are a negative influence on my life, and I haven't the self-control *not to do those things and go those places*."
There; FTFY.
Or things even worse. You can do this, but you're going to need pretty hefty realtime dust collection; I suppose it's possible that a Rainbow water-curtain vac might be enough, but I'm not sure.
I'll bet someone else will be sure.
And I'm not sure if you can finish off the cut edge of a board to a point where it won't unravel -- or at least, how you would do so.
People *do* do this: I have a favorite notebook whose covers are circuit boards. But it's non-trivial.
"But what we need to know is, do people want nasally-insertable computers?"
