Re: [gentoo-user] Re: OT: Fighting bit rot

[Michael Mol]

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Grant Edwards
<grant.b.edwards@×××××.com> wrote:
> On 2013-01-08, Florian Philipp <lists@×××××××××××.net> wrote:
>> Am 08.01.2013 00:20, schrieb Alan McKinnon:
>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 21:11:35 +0100
>>> Florian Philipp <lists@×××××××××××.net> 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