From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3419113836F for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 15:43:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6BDB921C008; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 15:43:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5C3C21C008 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 15:42:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ob0-f172.google.com with SMTP id za17so534260obc.3 for ; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 07:42:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=31kgyV5kStK6pgo1cDogVr5CKUieLUBcIPeXO4+shbk=; b=ynYliEdqgdLHwJsjCGcxtJZ9G2fHQGR8/1h0wFnyws4UPMQ646QJfNpIXMysOL2i4j CBaSYb7rj8iUqsRNRikJ8fZYcdD8+wniiRMlOB9v/ZOWP+E+0cQ5FD3mL/7r8eTiH22O ivDn6ziRK6J9rtWX4pYMY+RZDdW2S4KN2696CV/YsdwOOuXmBysqs2N06DazOWuY3eSI HwJicUI7CyhucSTgJ753oVV7G2oOxrqnTAzbpfLZT9i4isVSXuRBKSx7vZhH2CA5vW1d IpSJpRZYS8ntV2xS9fda3Q8mkR0m48MgG4WNDuwOLTj60PdOlB259J2UY71ex5Ivgubr tHOg== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.42.97 with SMTP id n1mr45048914obl.91.1357659728927; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 07:42:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.20.243 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 07:42:08 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <50EB2BF7.4040109@binarywings.net> <20130108012016.2f02c68c@khamul.example.com> <50EBCA77.8030603@binarywings.net> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 10:42:08 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: OT: Fighting bit rot From: Michael Mol To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 50125d9d-f508-4f21-8894-65d88c6315d8 X-Archives-Hash: 6f31d05a924a3a5479c82ea19a0f3f9c On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2013-01-08, Florian Philipp wrote: >> Am 08.01.2013 00:20, schrieb Alan McKinnon: >>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 21:11:35 +0100 >>> Florian Philipp wrote: >>> >>>> Hi list! >>>> >>>> I have a use case where I am seriously concerned about bit rot [1] >>>> and I thought it might be a good idea to start looking for it in my >>>> own private stuff, too. >> [...] >>>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rot >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Florian Philipp >>>> >>> >>> You are using a very peculiar definition of bitrot. >>> >>> "bits" do not "rot", they are not apples in a barrel. Bitrot usually >>> refers to code that goes unmaintained and no longer works in the >>> system it was installed. What definition are you using? >> >> That's why I referred to wikipedia, not the jargon file ;-) > > The wikipedia page to which you refer has _two_ definitions. The > "uncommon" on you're using: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rot#Decay_of_storage_media > > and the the common one: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rot#Problems_with_software > > I've heard the term "bit rot" for decades, but I've never heard the > "decay of storage media" usage. It's always referred to unmaintained > code that no longer words because of changes to tools or the > surrounding environment. Frankly, I'd heard of bitrot first as applying to decay of storage media. But this was back when your average storage media decay (floppies and early hard disks) was expected to happen within months, if not weeks. The term's applying to software utility being damaged by assumptions about its platform is a far, far newer application of the term. I still think of "crappy media and errors in transmission" before I think of platform compatibility decay. -- :wq