[FoRK] "removable" media rant (clarified, maybe)
jbone at place.org
Thu Feb 4 09:49:21 PST 2010
We're a bit off in the weeds from what I was actually complaining
about re: "removable" media. Lots of reasonable bulk-transfer use
Notice anything in common?
The cases illustrated generally revolve around transporting high-
capacity, high-speed, "dense" media around in order to accomplish the
transfer; media that's generally not designed for the "removable"
case particularly, and that is of the usual orders of capacity /
density / speed as the primary media in the machines of question and /
or of the same order of magnitude scale as the data sets of interest.
Note that the use cases involved are substantially different from e.g.
the "put USENET on CDs" type cases --- in that they don't involve
hundred of individual pieces of media. The throughput of e.g. an 18-
wheeler or whatever aside, the key qualitative difference between what
I'm objecting to and the cases offered is how small the individual
"chunks" have to be relative to the set. Want to move "30 hours
worth" (e.g. at whatever your WAN connectivity speed might be) of data
cross town? You can fit that in a single box in your passenger
floorboard. Whether that box was designed as "removable" or not is
actually not my beef.
Got no problem w/ that, it's all good.
My irritation is with those who perpetually assume that users want /
need to partition / stash / transport / etc. small subsets of "their
data" (i.e., orders-of-magnitude smaller than the whole set, or some
substantial part of that whole set, e.g. "all my tunes" or whatever)
and / or store individual datum on individual pieces of media, as
standard operating procedure. It's an idea that just seems boffo to
the capital and supply and content end of things, and yet is
fundamentally wacko from an end-user perspective (if you really give
it any thought at all.)
On Feb 3, 2010, at 7:35 AM, Jeff Bone wrote:
> Re: Sean's edge cases of SneakerNet usefulness...
> Well, sure. There are always the edge cases, and your argument is
> of course valid for those. I think the USENET think is folklore
> rather than fact, but I have no proof of that; but I've resorted to
> similar in a couple of situations myself when nothing else would
> You didn't dump that 700 gig on a thumb drive, though, did you? ;-)
> But perhaps I'm picking nits re: the definition of removable media.
> For such situations, I obtained a couple of these (different brand,
> but same thing) a while back and have found them useful on occasion:
More information about the FoRK