LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  January 2012

ARSCLIST January 2012

Subject:

Re: Are your archive's off-site files safe?

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:49:24 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (134 lines)

The proposals I've seen about "the cloud" as it applies to music seem to indicate it's a way large 
companies like Amazon and Apple are trying to get me to pay for music and then not own one atom of 
what I've bought. They seem to want to stream lossy versions of what I buy "on demand" (except when 
the internet is clogged, my ISP is down, their servers have been hacked or have otherwise failed, 
etc). The user agreement excerpts I've seen in some articles seem to indicate I won't have any 
ownership rights, just a right to ask this large company to provide a stream of digital bits to my 
"device" (computer, cellphone, etc). Compared to buying and owning a CD or LP, this is not a 
compelling proposition. You could say it's just a cloud of hot air!

A possible alternative theory is that "device" makers want to cut costs by not including any storage 
memory. Again, no thanks. The stuff I get streamed from "the cloud" -- Pandora and internet radio --  
is of an audio quality that reflects its price (free).

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Are your archive's off-site files safe?


> Hi, Randy,
>
> I'm not disagreeing with you that cloud computing is not a useful tool. I think in some message I 
> said I was using it, too, but I do not trust it for long-term storage without backups. Each 
> scenario of cloud use is different and I think my clouded contact information (part of GMail) is 
> better backed up (with backups on both my wife's and my mail machines in Thunderbird with those 
> being backed up into our NAS system (and ultimately the across-town copies) than my calendar 
> information (only a small amount is captured locally on a regular basis, the rest is left to 
> Google). There is also a deliberate backup of the GMail contact data directly every year at least 
> as we polish the list for sending Christmas greetings.
>
> I just don't see keeping your ONLY copy of something in the cloud. Yes, I agree that cloud 
> applications can facilitate and simplify, but let's at some location pull it down and keep our own 
> copy(ies).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
> On 2012-01-31 2:43 PM, Randy Riddle wrote:
>> I've worked in the tech field of Instructional Technology for two
>> decades and I'd disagree that cloud computing isn't a viable solution
>> in some situations.
>>
>> No, it's not workable for archives and institutional-level collections
>> unless there are legal and service agreements in place that make
>> migration out of it possible if new technologies or other issues come
>> along.
>>
>> For personal backups, I think it's reasonable and really something
>> that's needed for short-term backups with the move towards mobile
>> devices - laptops, iPads, and mobile phones - that are a hassle to
>> plug in and back up when you're constantly "on the go".
>>
>> What's really disturbing here is that the US government has seized the
>> whole enchilada, leaving individual users with legal backups and legal
>> short-term projects that they were working on with others in the
>> lurch.
>>
>> To me, it shows how much government officials misunderstand technology
>> trends and how much they're willing to "throw out the baby with the
>> bath water" for the benefit of large media companies that donate to
>> political campaigns.
>>
>> If the backups are destroyed, I'd personally call for a Congressional
>> investigation to make sure this kind of wholesale destruction of
>> individual data isn't legal.
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Richard L. Hess
>> <[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>>> Hi,Don,
>>>
>>> Corollaries:
>>>
>>> It was always foolish to trust the only copy of a file to a server that you
>>> do control.
>>>
>>> Just because they've put lipstick on the pig and called it "The Cloud"
>>> doesn't mean you can assume it's any different from a server that you don't
>>> control. At some point "The Cloud" has to resolve to a piece of hardware.
>>> We're not shoving data into those puffy white things that float by,
>>> sometimes dropping rain or snow on us.
>>>
>>> At it's best, "The Cloud" implies a fault-tolerant distributed system which
>>> can withstand multiple failures and is geographically diverse. I wonder how
>>> many "Cloud" applications are really that well engineered and managed.
>>>
>>> I did not feel comfortable after a tornado devastated downtown Goderich,
>>> Ontario last summer, so in addition to my two RAID 5 NAS units (one in each
>>> of two adjacent houses) for each piece of data, I added a steel ammo case
>>> full of notebook USB drives that get updated about every six months from the
>>> NAS units. These are kept across town (along a north-south axis as most
>>> tornadoes follow an east-west axis).
>>>
>>> The remote RAID 5 NAS unit is updated overnight from the local one over a
>>> fibre optic 100 Mb/s link (I'm too cheap to upgrade the media converters to
>>> gigabit), without propagating deletes, and some updates are not propagated
>>> (the theory being it's better to lose the edits than the original file).
>>>
>>> While I feel the pain of the people who lost data, and I'm sorry they lost
>>> data, I do not feel they were being responsible. I do know some people who
>>> rely on "cloud" backup, but if they were informed that their cloud backup
>>> was at risk, I'm certain (or at least I hope) they would migrate to local
>>> backup until they found another cloud. Personally, I am reasonably
>>> comfortable with three copies in three separate locations.
>>>
>>> Oh, and the steel ammo can might just protect those little notebook drives
>>> in USB cases from EMP should that scenario ever happen. Now, what would be
>>> left to read the drives???
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Richard
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2012-01-31 9:58 AM, Don Cox wrote:
>>>> It was always foolish to trust the only copy of a file to a server that
>>>> you don't control.
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
>>> Aurora, Ontario, Canada           (905) 713 6733     1-877-TAPE-FIX
>>> http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
>>> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.
>
> -- 
> Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
> Aurora, Ontario, Canada           (905) 713 6733     1-877-TAPE-FIX
> http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager