On 6/26/24 12:36 AM, Lars Brinkhoff wrote:
> Dan Cross wrote:
>> Allen was a man dying of cancer. LCM+L was important to him, but he
>> neglected to leave explicit instructions to set up an endowment for
>> it; that's unfortunate, but it was an oversight: he had other
>> concerns.
> The oversight would be that it was done too late.  Such paperwork was in
> progress, but it was not completed before his death.
There's a lesson in here somewhere.

I was always skeptical of the LCM-L's approach to curation, not that I 
had any specific reason for it other than finding it difficult to access 
some of the digital materials. However, I would hope that we would be 
more careful with how we contribute materials going forward. It's 
important that when you donate an item for posterity, that it be made 
accessible and available to that posterity... in perpetuity. This isn't 
a simple endeavor, it takes planning... as in ahead of time, beforehand, 
in advance of :). Of course that's easy to say, now, in this particular 
case. But, now that we know one way things can go awry, we should be 
more careful going forward.

Which brings me to my topic - how is TUHS set up for the future? and a 
corollary what's the deal with Bitsavers (I see mirrors including 
content on Archive.org)?

Of late, I've seen quite a few "reliable" retro sites going off the air 
and more and more, I'm relying on Archive.org's wayback machine to 
locate the materials on those sites. To my mind this is a problem in 
that Archive used to make a lot more digitial content available at 
higher resolution, without gatekeeping, but now, not so much... as in, 
practically anything is freely accessible.

Is TUHS set up in such a way as to weather the sands of time or do we 
need to do something to ensure its sustainability (similarly 
bitsavers/gunkies/beebe's bib/etc).

Will