That is a different situation to what most slashdotters will encounter. Most people reading slashdot will be much more interested in personal backups than computer forensics. Hard drives can work in a forensic situation too if the rules of evidence allow and if there is a well known and trusted way of transfering the data without tampering with it. Checksums on the files for example would work if stored on different media under the control of different people.
The article was regarding long term storage, so my comment regarding long term storage is relevant, talking about personal incremental backups which is usually done with hard drives is not relevant.
And yes, hard drives definitely can and are used for storing case evidence in forensic situations. But they do not work for long term archiving of data for the reasons I have already mentioned as well as for other reasons such as COST. If every legal case involving computer evidence was archived to separate hard drives the cost would be enormous relative to storing the same amount of data on optical media. You can just forget about archiving to a huge array of hard drives as well, the only way to have a true backup in that situation would be to have a 2nd huge array of drives which would further drive the cost up over an optical media solution. It also just does not make sense to pay to have the reading components attached to every media piece to put in the long term archive as well as have to deal with the problems associated when the reading components fail, this is a write once situation where files will not be edited and do not need to be accessible 24/7 so keep data and the reader SEPARATE. Here is a simple real world cost comparison:
1) The cheapest 100 pack of single layer DVD+R's from a decent brand I can find on newegg.com is:
RiData 4.7GB 16X DVD+R 100 pack is $17.99 / 470GB = 3.8 cents / GB
2) The cheapest 500GB hard drive I could find is:
Samsun HD502HI 500GB SATA 300 is $49.99 / 500GB = 9.9 cents / GB
The hard drive solution costs nearly 3 times more per GB which definitely is a significant price difference.
Also, long term archiving is not just something to be used in computer forensics, that is just one tiny usage for it. Medical, insurance, and other important records need to be stored long term as well and optical media fits the situation very nicely.
Yeah, there's the hallmark of a reliable storage medium. How often does your hard disk fail to write 10% of the data?
The point I was making was if it is known that write errors can and will occur then verification of the written data is a necessity. Once the data is written correctly then optical media can stand the test of time much better than optical media. I can take a CD made in the 80s and walk into Best Buy and play it on nearly any computer in the store. Most likely the CD/DVD drive in the computer in the store will have a SATA interface too, this is evidence that keeping the reading components separate from the media is beneficial to long term storage since the archiver does not need to worry about computer interfaces working in the future at all with optical media. What other 20+ year old media can you do the same with? That is right, none, so there is one more real world example as evidence optical media is superior for long term archival compared to hard drives.
I won't be taking your advice then. There's a conflict of interest. In any case you're just making the case AGAINST optical media.
If you want to remain ignorant and not take my advice then go for it, I won't lose any sleep. You are incorrect again though, I did not make a case against optical media, I made the case that if you are going to use optical media in a valid situation such as long term archival that you absolutely must verify the written data. Once the data is written correctly which is 99% of the time as long as good media is used then you can enjoy the benefits such as cheaper cost per GB, longer storage life, and less parts to fail compared to hard drives.
Optical media isn't without problems, I admit that, but if proper procedures are followed to combat the problems then there are many benefits to be had.
So what you're saying is that you need a reader that's no longer manufactured and is obsolete to get reliable reading? Am I suppose to be impressed? That's horrible. What happens in another 5 years when the number of working Plextors has dwindled?
Please don't resort to arguments of your credibility because you happen to work in the field. For someone that does, you've said some extremely FOOLISH things.
I never said you needed a Plextor to get reliable reading, I said for discs that HAVE PROBLEMS such as being scratched, the dye deteriorating on cheap media, etc you would be amazed that the disc you tried in 100 modern CD/DVD drives and can't be read can magically be read in an old Plextor. If you take care of the discs and don't get cheapass media then the disc should be readable in ANY drive. You keep putting words in my mouth instead of comprehending what I write out.
Regarding your comment about me saying foolish things, you only think what I say is foolish because you are ignorant to optical medias benefits to long term archiving. How about instead of making up words to put in my mouth and attacking the known writing problems optical media has you focus on making an argument against my argument that optical media costs less be GB and is more reliable long term (as long as it was written and stored properly) compared to hard drives. I will love to hear your argument regarding how keeping the reading components connected to the data storage medium is an advantage in long term data archival situations.
No danger. I don't drink.
Seriously, you're willing to believe that a DVD or CD will last 1000 years based on marketing and pseudoscience and I'm the one that looks like an uninformed jackass? Please don't make me laugh.
I think I've wasted enough time talking to someone who believes in magical digital media that lasts 1000 years. You want to know what media lasts 1000 years? Stone tablets. Even that requires proper storage. (Paper and parchment will also last but it will degrade even if stored properly)
I don't drink either.
Anyway, what I said was even if the 1000 year claim is just marketing fluff and the real longevity was only 1% of that that would be 10 years which beats most hard drive longevity right off the bat. Now, after reading the article (did you even do that?) I learned that what they are doing is completely different than what is done to write data to current optical media. Current writable optical media has dye which the drive laser can shoot to create a phase change and since the dye ages and deteriorates this means at some point the data will just be gone.
This new technology actually etches the data on a disc, you know, like using a chisel and hammer on a stone tablet (funny you gave that as an example in your argument lacking any evidence against the companies claims since you probably didn't read the article at all). This type of storage has been proven to last a long time, go check out the hieroglyphics in Egypt if you want proof. The reason current discs deteriorate is because the dye is organic, so if there was a way to do the same thing organic dye does but with an inorganic material that never deteriorates...
"Lunt and Linford found that an inorganic material similar to obsidian, a glass-like igneous rock, could be permanently bound to a reflective metal, as O'Connell explained last year to Silicon Slopes, an online tech review. This hard surface could then be etched away to record binary data."
Is that process too complicated for you to understand and/or do you not think it is possible with current technology?
I think the process is braindead simple to understand (hold your two hands up in front of your face and in front of a window on a sunny day with the sun beating in and then remove one hand and that is basically what etching away the material in front of the reflector, your face, is like) and I have no reason to believe binding a material to polycarbonate or whatever is used would cause major problems.
Therefore I think this new technology might really turn out to be something useful. I don't base this on marketing and pseudoscience, I base it on taking the time to understand the technology involved. I need to see more evidence that what they claim to be doing is really possible but my guess is that if Philips ends up licensing the technology (which they are about to do) that that is all the proof I need that is really can be done.
Do I believe the claim of 1000 years? Not without more evidence, I want to know what adhesives could last that long and also how polycarbonate and other materials could last that long without deterioration. Even then I would have a hard time believing 1000 years. With current technology however and using an inorganic medium to put in front of the reflector to be etched away I could see at least 100+ years being a real possibility. I look forward to checking this new technology out, if it turns out to really not be all BS then it could have a huge impact on long term data archiving.
You look like an uninformed jackass because you are one. Do some research and then dispute my claims without putting words in my mouth or talk about unrelevant matters. All I am saying is that the technology seems feasible for the reasons I described earlier. As you have seen I did NOT base those claims solely on marketing or "pseudo-science" as you claim. Since you are supposed to be so informed I would love to hear why you don't think their technology is possible and also dispute how even if it could only last 100 years how that would still make the technology less superior to long term archiving on hard drives which last 5-15 years instead. Remember this is data archiving which is writing the data to media and then storing that media somewhere for a long period of time, not incremental backups which you keep confusing with data archiving.