bitsavers RSS beta
julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk
Tue Mar 6 15:44:03 CST 2007
Al Kossow wrote:
> > Personally I find I sometimes get lost in the archive (via the web
> > though as a filename often doesn't obviously correspond to a document
> The file naming has evolved over the 7+ years. In general, anything new
> is being
> added with <manual part number> <title> <date>
> This started on a system with 32 character file names, so <title> was
> truncated, and as you noticed, <title> wasn't always the document title.
It's not so much of an inconvenience on a good connection - but it probably
doesn't help with bandwidth at the server if people are having to download
files just to see what they are :(
> The worst problem with the current arrangement is file renaming and
> rearrangement of the heirarchy.
I suppose that's one area where a database could potentially help, as the
database could be the definitive source as far as mirrors are concerned when
it comes to mirroring content.
> In general though, it seems to serve it's purpose, so I'm not inclined
> to spend a lot of time adding database functionality to it.
Sure, I saw it more as one of those projects (like additions to the classiccmp
website) that people with the time and skills could maybe take on, rather than
it being something that you'd have to do yourself. I bet we've got a few
dba's, PHP gurus etc. etc. lurking on the list...
> I've been working on a MUCH harder problem on how to organize the CHM
> digital holdings, of which the bitsavers archive is a fairly tiny part.
heh heh, not an easy task at all - presumably made all the more difficult if
you've already got a significant amount of data in digital form which needs to
be migrated to a new system. One of those situations where it'd be nice to
just know what the "right" solution was up-front I suppose and then just stick
More information about the cctalk