Re: offtopic/ document storage (was Re: Which scanners REALLY provide 36 bit output? HP?)

From: Steve Underwood (
Date: Thu Dec 14 2000 - 04:39:58 PST

  • Next message: Sergio: "HP 3300C"

    Nick Lamb wrote:

    > On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 09:58:07AM +0800, Steve Underwood wrote:
    > > If you want to do archival storage of documents, do it on paper.
    > Ha ha ha. I'm sure that's true if your #1 concern is "these documents
    > must still exist at some defined point in the future", which is a
    > common legal requirement. For me though, you can't beat actually being
    > able to _access_ the archived documents... for that reason our document
    > images are on big fast magnetic disks :)

    The subject was scanning for archival storage of flakey documents. The
    point is, this is going the wrong way. The flakiest things are the digital
    media. Five years from now your disks probably won't be here. 10 years from
    now they certainly won't. If you keep regularly copying to new disks you
    still have a high probability of calamatous failure along the way, loosing
    large chunks of data.

    Scanners are great for getting working copies of images onto your big fast,
    but oh so flaky, hard disks. That's all.

    Only a small portion of archival requirements are for legal reasons. Think
    how thin your school history books would have been, if everything were
    stored on modern digital media since the time of the Egyptians....... Hey
    wait a minute, I like the idea of that!


    Source code, list archive, and docs:
    To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Dec 14 2000 - 04:35:22 PST