OT - drowning in a sea of stuff

[AMc]

On this theme, did anyone listen to this programme on R4 last week? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0103zpt

Even if we digitise our lives, there's still the issue of looking after the data if we wish it to be preserved. Or perhaps we don't. But imagine how interesting it would be to inherit a hard drive full of all the life-trivia accumulated by every previous owner of our period properties, with photos and videos of the people who actually designed and built them, the first owners, their decoration choices, their actual lifestyles. Admittedly, it would be of limited interest, but for those that were interested it would be an invaluable resource.

Haven't heard the programme but read recently that the British Library (?) is now collecting the computers of authors along with the more traditional notebooks and drafts. IIRC they had Martin Amis first Mac.

I had a sobering experience recently having decided to try and switch back to my original career in 3D computer graphics. My BA final animation is on BetaCam a professional tape format that predates digital video like MPEG2 - that in turn was transferred from an old BBC 1" frame by frame video machine. The original animation frames were rendered (drawn), copied to the 1" then deleted immediately because there wasn't enough storage available to hold them. I contacted my old lecturers and discovered that they no longer have the ability to play these cassettes back and so everything they didn't digitize before they got rid of the 1" and Beta kit is now unplayable.

I then attempted to install the software I used for the following 5 years of paid work. None of it worked on XP or Windows2000 so it is to all intents and purposes gone forever too bar a few screenshots I saved as image files. Essentially everything I did between 1991 and 2000 is unplayable or gone!

I have to admit I am also a digital horder - most of the disk space on this PC is taken up with files that I've saved and probably never need to access again. But at least bigger hard drives are forever cheaper and tend to take up the same space inside the case

 

[Penners]

On this theme, did anyone listen to this programme on R4 last week? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0103zpt

Even if we digitise our lives, there's still the issue of looking after the data if we wish it to be preserved. Or perhaps we don't. But imagine how interesting it would be to inherit a hard drive full of all the life-trivia accumulated by every previous owner of our period properties, with photos and videos of the people who actually designed and built them, the first owners, their decoration choices, their actual lifestyles. Admittedly, it would be of limited interest, but for those that were interested it would be an invaluable resource.

The other aspect of that question is one I think we've discussed before, FF. It's all well and good to store our stuff on optical disks, hard drives and solid state drives, but (a) will these media be reliable for archiving purposes and (b) will future generations have the equipment to read the drive formatting and file formats that we use?

Or will we have to bury some kind of electronic Rosetta Stone somewhere?

 

[Ixia]

<quote>Even if we digitise our lives, there's still the issue of looking after the data if we wish it to be preserved. Or perhaps we don't. But imagine how interesting it would be to inherit a hard drive full of all the life-trivia accumulated by every previous owner of our period properties, with photos and videos of the people who actually designed and built them, the first owners, their decoration choices, their actual lifestyles. Admittedly, it would be of limited interest, but for those that were interested it would be an invaluable resource.</quote>

Most of all it would probably fit in your pocket, instead of taking over half the house.

We are drowning under stuff, doesn't help that we have no storage whilst we are working on the house - no wardrobes, so clothes are hanging all over the shop. Stuff in boxes, that gets dragged out when we need something at the bottom of the box. A 5yr old who has no concept of tidying away. Oh and a garage that is stuffed to the rafters with timber that I'm sure will come in use, but it's so tightly packed that I can't actually get in there, so end up buying timber instead.

Urgh - too stressful. There are times when I just long for a fresh start, with no possessions.

 

[Penners]

a garage that is stuffed to the rafters with timber that I'm sure will come in use, but it's so tightly packed that I can't actually get in there, so end up buying timber instead.

Oh boy, do I identify with that?!

Except that it's not just timber with me. My garage is so untidy that I can never find the tool that I need, either.

Until, that is, I've been out to buy another one.

 

[Flyfisher]

It's all well and good to store our stuff on optical disks, hard drives and solid state drives, but (a) will these media be reliable for archiving purposes and (b) will future generations have the equipment to read the drive formatting and file formats that we use?

That's a good point, although I'd suggest there's a huge difference between archiving and preserving data. Archiving (in my view) concerns the physical media (and data) whereas preserving is only concerned with the data itself. Thus, the Google Books project is all about preserving data that is currently held in written form in old books (and making it widely available) but it nothing to do with archiving the original books themselves.

Similarly, I'm sure we're all familiar with old videotapes, cine films, and various versions of computer floppy disks - all of which are no longer widely used, making it difficult (though never actually impossible) to extract the 'archived' data that is held on them. Because of these difficulties, I believe that archiving will always be the rather specialist activity that is is today - something for museums and libraries to worry about.

But, preserving data - once it has been digitised - is a relatively simple process that everyone with a computer can do. Thus, I have stuff from the 1980s on my hard drive that I can still access today because I've taken the trouble to copy it from the original 8-inch floppy disk, to a 5.25" floppy disk, to a 3.5" floppy disk, to a Zip disk and then to a succession of hard drives. {u]Copying[/u] data is the key to its preservation, not [/u]archiving[/u]; not only does copying help to preseve data in case of media failure but it also ensures it's held on a current storage device and thus easily read and, importantly, easily transferred to the next generation of storage device.

Thus, AMc's BetaCam video tape is archived information, which will become increasingly difficult to read as time goes by. Fortunately, BetaCam machines are still fairly plentiful and it wouldn't be too costly, today, to have the video transferred to a digital format. But it's a question of value - it may not be of any value to most people but it may be of value to AMc and his descendants.

I'm still reeling from a recent quotation of £425 to digitise a number of 8mm cine films. £20 per 30 mins didn't seem too bad, but when it was all added up it was a bit of a shock. But it's all family material and I feel I really ought to have it digitised. So, although digital technology enables us all to curate our own little bit of history, there is still a cost in terms of time and money.

 

[Flyfisher]

Or will we have to bury some kind of electronic Rosetta Stone somewhere?

I've always assumed that we're already doing that. For example, the JPEG standard is well very defined and, I'm sure, must be stored in numerous libraries around the world, not to mention being available online somewhere.

Thus, even if current JPEG players don't work on future computers, it would not be a difficult task to write completely new software to display a JPEG photograph.

An alternative option is to emulate an old computer using software on a modern computer. The ever-increasing power of computers makes this a relatively straightforward task. Indeed, it is already possible to download software emulators for the old Sinclair Spectrum computer and then use it to run old Spectrum games on a modern PC (should you be so inclined!).

 

[MdB]

Or will we have to bury some kind of electronic Rosetta Stone somewhere?

I've always assumed that we're already doing that. For example, the JPEG standard is well very defined and, I'm sure, must be stored in numerous libraries around the world, not to mention being available online somewhere.

Ha ha ha ha ha..... Ha ha ha ha ...

(sorry I've had a nice glass or two and I'm about to go off on one.....)

Format standards are something that big software companies (Yes I'm talking about Micky$oft) use to shaft their users. It is something that I and a lot of computer users hate. You may well think that .doc is a software standard. It is but for Micky$oft only, they won't release the spec. This means that if you want to open a Word document in the year 2020 then there is good chance you won't. Your success depends on Micky$oft still being around (hopefully they won't) or it depends on the free software writers out there successfully reverse engineering the spec. So far they have done a pretty good job with programs such as the LibreOffice suite (used to be OpenOffice) being able to open most (but not all) files. This has been done completely without the help of Micky$oft.

Enough companies and governments have been caught out by file formats that they can't open a few years later that the demand for open formats (i.e. formats that have been publicly disclosed and can be implemented by anybody - very useful for interoperability) is being coming a requirement for the purchase of software. In my opinion a very good thing. Micky$ofts reaction to this is to come up with their own "open" format. You may have come across it, it is called docx. The only problem is that this new open standard isn't supported by Micky$oft Office. Their docx files do not meet the standard and won't for at least another couple of years. Currently LibreOffice supports Micky$ofts own open format to a better standard than Micky$oft does themselves. Currently, if you generate a docx file using the latest Micky$oft Office suite, there is still the chance that you won't be able to open it in the future. On the other hand, you can be pretty sure that you will be able to open a .odt file (LibreOffice format) as this format is published in detail and is supported by many programs apart from LibreOffice.

Conclusion to all of this - Save your data in a format that has been published and don't get stuck with a format which is closed - no matter how big the company behind it.

Oh and LibraOffice is completely free. There is no need to pay the Micky$oft tax to get hold of it. Currently I'm still with OpenOffice but plan to shift over shortly. It has done everything I need for an office suite for the last couple of years without any problems at all. Try it out. http://www.libreoffice.org/

 

[LadyArowana]

I entirely endorse Joce's ruthlessly minimalist approach, a few elephants and religious icons are all that is necessary :lol: .

 

[Flyfisher]

Conclusion to all of this - Save your data in a format that has been published and don't get stuck with a format which is closed - no matter how big the company behind it.

Fair point about company-proprietary standards (hence my choice of JPEG as an example), although in most cases I think such things are generally confined to the formatting details. If you open a .doc file as a text file then it's pretty easy to find the basic text amongst all the formatting rubbish, so the essence of the document is fairly accessible.

Having said that, I've long used pdf as the format to send out letters and documents, even if they were originated with a proprietary word processing package. I also use pdf to store all the stuff I scan.

However, your point does make me wonder about more technical information such as CAD/CAM files. In theory, such files contain all the information required for future technologists to build all manner of 'ancient' 21st century devices, but if they can't read the file formats . . .

The other thing to be aware of is password protection and encryption keys, especially in the context of wills and leaving one's affairs in good order for an executor.

 

[Penners]

Format standards are something that big software companies (Yes I'm talking about Micky$oft) use to shaft their users. It is something that I and a lot of computer users hate. You may well think that .doc is a software standard. It is but for Micky$oft only, they won't release the spec. This means that if you want to open a Word document in the year 2020 then there is good chance you won't. Your success depends on Micky$oft still being around (hopefully they won't)

But surely the restriction of MS software formats is a commercial licencing issue, rather than a technical one, isn't it? I find it hard to believe that there aren't legions of software geeks who are perfectly capable of writing software to open a .doc or .xls file, but for the risk of having their socks sued off.

So if MS eventually perishes, the file formats won't immediately become unreadable, will they?

 

[JoceAndChris]

LadyA, that is a very impressive collection of elephants. For one who could not be more opposite to the creature collected; an intriguing display.

 

[LadyArowana]

I don't know about that Joce, I try not to forget things and I'm quite fond of doughnuts! that's just some of the collection too, will have to sort out some other pictures to share. Might need to get one of Mr P's patent elephant repelling devices.

 

[Penners]

Warning: they work extremely well in the UK, but aren't guaranteed in all climes.

 

[MdB]

So if MS eventually perishes, the file formats won't immediately become unreadable, will they?

90% of the files - 99% of the files even - sure, no problem. It is the remaining 1% that use part of the specification that nobody has worked out, they will become unreadable.

 

[Flyfisher]

Surely not completely unreadable? Wouldn't it be pretty easy to extract the basic text, or do they go to the bother of encoding it somehow. I can imagine that drawings might be more difficult to regenerate.

However, in general, I tend to agree with Penners that in the future there would some super-geeks somewhere who could harness all that futuristic super-duper computing power to crack the problem (besides, by then, the original M$ developers would probably have spilled the confidential beans in their own digital archives :wink: ).

 

[LadyArowana]

Warning: they work extremely well in the UK, but aren't guaranteed in all climes.

That makes a great deal of sense, I thought I had elephant proofed the place but they still seem to get in...................




even the bathroom has been colonised.

 

[Feltwell]

Don't forget......

 

[LadyArowana]

Don't forget......

I love that! Do you think I would need LBC to stick a copy on our nice Georgian front door one day?