Talk:Data degradation/Archive 1

Archive 1

May old published content be considered bit rot?

Please see Wikipedia:Replies to common objections#Redundancy, where "bit rot" is considered old published content. Is RCO wrong or is this article incomplete? See also the talk page. Thanks! :) ≈ Ekevu ^talk _contrib 14:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This term is frequently used by software engineers to describe the more common issue of data corruption on hardware that is actually functioning perfectly. Malware, viruses, spyware, worms, and the like combined with the repeated installation and deinstallation of applications, patches, and service packs can cause a gradual destructive effect on a computer's operating system and applications, or "bit rot". Axewielder 16:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Causes of bit rot on Windows

Old libraries/registry entries don't necessarily contribute to degraded performance. Extra, unused registry entries cause as much of a performance hit as extra rows in an SQL database. Unused libraries simply sit idle on the disk and only consume space. In any case, someone else can add a second example (the history has previous examples), or change the first one to be less technical if need be. --CCFreak2K 04:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting phenomenon. Aside from defragmenting the disk, which many users fail to do, there are many unsubstantiated conjectures about this slow-down effect. It is also unclear if this is uniquely a feature of Windows. But in general, performance claims about different OS's are not reliable. DonPMitchell 06:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Major Change

Edited the part about cosmic rays, to a completely different idea. Thoughts? Dobbs (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Degradation of Patch Files?

In my experience as a developer in various commercial and open-source environments, bit rot most often refers to the fact that a patch file based on an older version of source code has a limited lifespan before applying it to the latest version of the source code will either fail or result in an unusable program, rather than producing the desired modification. The article does not appear to anticipate this usage. Is there some other more appropriate term for this well-known phenomenon? AndersJohnson (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Separate hardware and software?

Is this notion of "bit rot" in software ever really used? Maybe it's best to split it... then again maybe not.

We might want to link or redirect from "bitflip"/"bit flip".

Also does anyone have statistics into how often hardware bitflips occur? Those should be put up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.202.1.180 (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

File indexing

It is implied (and is correct) that file indexing software "to make file searching quicker" slows it down. Is there a simpler way to put this?

SimonTrew (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Joke?

"Bit Rot can also be classified as the binary data wearing away, much like a structure wears away from weather. Imagine a square wave as new data. As this data gets older those sharp corners on the square wave become more rounded. To fix this problem, one might use a bit planer. A Bit Planer will decrease the elevation of the square wave until there is a "sharp corner" again, thus converting the binary 1's into 0.9's (reducing necessary headroom and taking up less space on your hard drive).".

Is that a joke? If so, shouldn't it be removed sometimes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.188.54.137 (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Though I have to admit it came close enough to make sense that I was almost fooled! 'Taking up less space...' was the give-away. In any case, while I think it was actually a very clever and witty joke, I think it has no place in a serious article. Unless it is perhaps referenced as a joke?

211.26.199.245 (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

See Also / External Link to Millenniata's M-Disc ?

Millenniata's M-DISC seems very relevant to this article as it is designed to resist problems that cause bit-rot. However, despite the fact that I have no affiliation with the company (nor have even yet tried the product), and despite WP:Bold, I am hesitant to put in a cross-reference/link without some consent. Does anyone else believe such a link would be relevant? I'm for it, but if it seems too close to violating WP:NOTHOWTO, then perhaps a page of "bit-rot related software and hardware" is in order? 108.212.229.135 (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree to the relevance, added an M-DISC mention to a rewrite of the Decay section. :) —Hobart (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Software bit rot

I am a sysadmin with 13 years of experience and I have always used the term bit rot to refer to the spontaneous degradation of a software program over time. I have never known anyone to use it to refer to the actual failure of hardware. Is the use of the term to refer to hardware failures actually predominant or even common? I strongly suspect it is not. Robert Brockway 19:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I also hadn't considered it meant "actual" bit rot before reading this.

Agree: although digital media do in fact literally decay, I have never heard that called "bit rot" -- what's the source for the other meaning? The slang "bit rot" in my experience is always a notional "decay" of the software (which is physically impossible, of course, but represents the decreasing fitness of the software to a changing digital environment). Digitante (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Just because your part of the world uses "bit rot" to mean "software rot" doesn't mean it's correct. Many people have used the term "bit rot" in the relationship of corrupted data in files and/or file systems, and it actually makes more sense to use "bit rot" in this manor too. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)