Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 08:39:08 +0100 From: Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org> To: Ralf Mardorf <ralf-mardorf@riseup.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: (very OT) Ideal partition schemes (history of partitioning) Message-ID: <20200830083908.c7cc67a23306c90d51f5e446@sohara.org> In-Reply-To: <20200830085848.68ab4832@archlinux> References: <CAGBxaXkf53K4EHtq9cDaRm3MOZZixyBq-aQfZ7upHo-wUwrmCg@mail.gmail.com> <20200829154417.8dd5f83d.freebsd@edvax.de> <20200830085848.68ab4832@archlinux>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 30 Aug 2020 08:58:48 +0200 Ralf Mardorf <ralf-mardorf@riseup.net> wrote: > There's no need to take 10 shots/second of a still life and to repeat > it 20 times, to end up with 200 photos. No there isn't, taking many shots and selecting the best has of course long been standard practice for professional photographers digital cameras and modern memory sizes just make it possible to carry this to extremes. <drifting to your other point about digital wastage elsethread> The thing is data storage is cheap and plentiful these days, the old habits of keeping filesystems clean are long since past relevance. There's probably a couple of terabytes of data on my NAS that may never be looked at again (old films for example) but it costs almost nothing to keep it while it would cost time and decision making to clean it up and there's plenty of capacity on the NAS for years to come - I have better things to do with my time and decision making capacity, by the time the capacity is getting to be an issue I'll be wanting to replace the drives anyway and bigger ones will be cheap (they already are). -- Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200830083908.c7cc67a23306c90d51f5e446>