Alright I know this is going to get some hate and I fully support emulation and an overhaul of US copyright and patent law but the justmeremember’s supportive post is just bad. This is the same bad practice that many organizations, especially manufacturing, have problems with. If the ~20 years of raw data is so important, then why is it sitting on decades passed end-of-life stuff?
If it is worth the investment, then why not invest in a way to convert the data into something less dependent on EOL software? There’s lots of ways, cheap and not to do this.
But even worse, I bet there ‘raw’ data that’s only a year old still sitting on those machines. I don’t know if the ‘lab guy’ actually pulls a salary or not but maybe hire someone to begin trying to actually solve the problem instead of maintaining an eventual losing game?
In ~20 years they couldn’t be cutting slivers from the budget to eventually invest in something that would perhaps ‘reset the clock?’
At this point I wouldn’t be surprised to find a post of them complaining about Excel being too slow and unstable because they’ve been using it as a database for ~20 years worth of data at this point either.
Ah. So…blame the victim. Cause apparently capitalism is, like, perfect or something.
The company selling the software arbitrarily created a problem for no reason other than greed. And yet, the ones not forking over more money are the problem.
Yeah, hard no from me on your entire argument, buddy.
I didn’t say capitalism is perfect nor did I imply it.
So hypothetically let’s say the vendor lost the rights to the software since it is abandonware – great. I’d love it.
What changes for justmeremember’s situation? Nothing changes.
I suppose your only issue here is that the software vendor or some entity should support it forever. OK, so why didn’t they just choose a FOSS alternative or make one themselves? If not then, why not now? There is nothing that stops them from the latter other than time and effort. Even better, everyone else could benefit!
Does that make justmeremember just as culpable here or are they still the victim with no reasonable way to a solution?
I posted simply because this specific issue is much too common and also just as common is the failure to actually solve it regardless of the abandonware argument instead of stop-gapping and kicking it down the line until access to the data is gone forever.
Because they’re a science research lab not a computer programming lab? Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying but they’re not the right people, nor in the right situation to be solving this problem.
It isn’t necessarily a computer programming problem either. Rather it is an IT problem at least in part, one that the poster states is the primary job of his ‘lab guy’ – to maintain two ancient Windows 95 computers specifically. That person must know enough to sustain the troubleshooting and replacement of the hardware and certainly at least the transfer of data from the own spinning hard drives. Why not instead put that technical expertise into actually solving the problem long-term? Why not just run both in qemu and use hardware passthru if required? At least then, you would rid yourself of the ticking time-bomb of hardware and its diminishing availability. That RAM that is no longer made isn’t going to last forever. They don’t even need to know much about how it all works. There are guides, even for Windows 95 available.
Perhaps there are other hurdles such as running something on ISA but even so, eventually it isn’t going to matter. Primarily, it seems rather the hurdle is specifically the software and the data it facilitates though. Does it really have some sort of ancient hardware dependency? Maybe. But in all that time of this ‘lab guy’ who’s main role is just these two machines must have some time to experiment and figure this out. The data must be copyable, even as a straight hard drive image even if it isn’t a flat file (extremely doubtful but it doesn’t matter). I mean the data is by the author’s own emphasis CRITICAL.
If it is CRITICAL then why don’t they give it that priority, even to the lone ‘lab guy’ that’s acting IT?
Unless there’s some big edge case here that just isn’t simply said and there is something above and beyond simply just the software they speak about, I feel like I’ve put more effort into typing these responses than it would take to effectively solve the hardware on life support side of it. Solving the software dependency side? Depending on how the datasets are logically stored it may require a software developer but it also may not. However, simply virtualizing the environment would solve many, if not all, of these problems with minimal investment, especially to CRITICAL (their emphasis) data with ~20 years to figure it out. It would simply be a new computer and some sort of media to install Linux or *BSD on and perhaps a COTS converter if it is using something like an LPT interface or even a DB9/DE-9 D-Sub (though you can still find modern motherboards, cards or even laptops capable of supporting those but also certainly a cheap USB adapter as well).
Anyway, I’m just going to leave it at that, I think I’ve said a lot on the subject to numerous people and do not have much more to add other than this is most likely solvable and outside of severe edge cases, solvable without expert knowledge considering the timeframe.
In a GxP environment with bespoke pharmaceutical equipment you are spending anywhere from 1-4000 collective labour hours and anywhere from 50k-250k for a control system upgrade, URS/TRS/SDS, Code risk assessment and review, and Qualification. To give you an idea, on a therapeutic manufacturing plant you’re looking at a handful of two inch binders for the end to end system.
You are also (and more importantly) taking your resources off BAU or revenue generating improvement work for this project. You have a validated and qualified system, and even if you are spending $10-20k for a $500 like for like IPC or control card, the cost benefits of another 5 years is worth it.
If your equipment is a medical device, such as a diagnostic microscope, add another few binders of paperwork and regulator sign off. There’s a reason the equipment is so expensive
If you get into the food industry, or general manufacturing the barriers to upgrade are much less. For your machine shop running floppy disks, it’s a case of the external cost would approach the cost of a new machine, and the existing machine is fine.
As a maintenance professional this is the sort of risk management we conduct on an ongoing basis.
Obviously the company is the bad guy here. But if the research data is so important, the lab should try to solve their problem instead of just praying that the 20 year old machine won’t fail.
Because it’s often not worth the investment. You would pay a shit ton for a one time conversion of data that is still accessible.
Still accessible for now and less likely to be accessible as the clock ticks and less likely that there is compatible hardware to replace.
If it isn’t worth the investment, then what’s the problem here? So what if the data is lost? It obviously isn’t worth it.
If the software became open source, because the company abandoned it, then that cost could potentially be brought down significantly.
OK but that isn’t a counter point to what I said. If the hardware never fails, there is no problem either. What does that matter? And who cares if it was FOSS (though I am a FOSS advocate). What if nobody maintains it?
It doesn’t matter because these aren’t the reality of the problems that this person is dealing with. Why not make some FOSS that takes care of the issue and runs on something that isn’t on borrowed time and can endure not only hardware changes but operating system changes? That’d be relevant. It goes back to my point doesn’t it? Why not hire this person.
Clean room reverse engineering has case law precedent that essentially make this low risk legally (certainly nil if the right’s holder is defunct).
You are also missing the parts where functional hardware loses support. Which is even worse in my opinion.
I didn’t miss the point. I even made the point of having at least ~20 years to plan for it in the budget. Also the hardware has already lost support or there wouldn’t be an issue, would there? You could just keep sustaining it without relying on a diminishing supply.
Or are we talking about some hypothetical hardware that wasn’t mentioned? I guess I would have missed that point since it was never made.
Alright I know this is going to get some hate and I fully support emulation and an overhaul of US copyright and patent law but the justmeremember’s supportive post is just bad. This is the same bad practice that many organizations, especially manufacturing, have problems with. If the ~20 years of raw data is so important, then why is it sitting on decades passed end-of-life stuff?
If it is worth the investment, then why not invest in a way to convert the data into something less dependent on EOL software? There’s lots of ways, cheap and not to do this.
But even worse, I bet there ‘raw’ data that’s only a year old still sitting on those machines. I don’t know if the ‘lab guy’ actually pulls a salary or not but maybe hire someone to begin trying to actually solve the problem instead of maintaining an eventual losing game?
In ~20 years they couldn’t be cutting slivers from the budget to eventually invest in something that would perhaps ‘reset the clock?’
At this point I wouldn’t be surprised to find a post of them complaining about Excel being too slow and unstable because they’ve been using it as a database for ~20 years worth of data at this point either.
Ah. So…blame the victim. Cause apparently capitalism is, like, perfect or something.
The company selling the software arbitrarily created a problem for no reason other than greed. And yet, the ones not forking over more money are the problem.
Yeah, hard no from me on your entire argument, buddy.
I didn’t say capitalism is perfect nor did I imply it.
So hypothetically let’s say the vendor lost the rights to the software since it is abandonware – great. I’d love it.
What changes for justmeremember’s situation? Nothing changes.
I suppose your only issue here is that the software vendor or some entity should support it forever. OK, so why didn’t they just choose a FOSS alternative or make one themselves? If not then, why not now? There is nothing that stops them from the latter other than time and effort. Even better, everyone else could benefit!
Does that make justmeremember just as culpable here or are they still the victim with no reasonable way to a solution?
I posted simply because this specific issue is much too common and also just as common is the failure to actually solve it regardless of the abandonware argument instead of stop-gapping and kicking it down the line until access to the data is gone forever.
Because they’re a science research lab not a computer programming lab? Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying but they’re not the right people, nor in the right situation to be solving this problem.
It isn’t necessarily a computer programming problem either. Rather it is an IT problem at least in part, one that the poster states is the primary job of his ‘lab guy’ – to maintain two ancient Windows 95 computers specifically. That person must know enough to sustain the troubleshooting and replacement of the hardware and certainly at least the transfer of data from the own spinning hard drives. Why not instead put that technical expertise into actually solving the problem long-term? Why not just run both in qemu and use hardware passthru if required? At least then, you would rid yourself of the ticking time-bomb of hardware and its diminishing availability. That RAM that is no longer made isn’t going to last forever. They don’t even need to know much about how it all works. There are guides, even for Windows 95 available.
Perhaps there are other hurdles such as running something on ISA but even so, eventually it isn’t going to matter. Primarily, it seems rather the hurdle is specifically the software and the data it facilitates though. Does it really have some sort of ancient hardware dependency? Maybe. But in all that time of this ‘lab guy’ who’s main role is just these two machines must have some time to experiment and figure this out. The data must be copyable, even as a straight hard drive image even if it isn’t a flat file (extremely doubtful but it doesn’t matter). I mean the data is by the author’s own emphasis CRITICAL.
If it is CRITICAL then why don’t they give it that priority, even to the lone ‘lab guy’ that’s acting IT?
Unless there’s some big edge case here that just isn’t simply said and there is something above and beyond simply just the software they speak about, I feel like I’ve put more effort into typing these responses than it would take to effectively solve the hardware on life support side of it. Solving the software dependency side? Depending on how the datasets are logically stored it may require a software developer but it also may not. However, simply virtualizing the environment would solve many, if not all, of these problems with minimal investment, especially to CRITICAL (their emphasis) data with ~20 years to figure it out. It would simply be a new computer and some sort of media to install Linux or *BSD on and perhaps a COTS converter if it is using something like an LPT interface or even a DB9/DE-9 D-Sub (though you can still find modern motherboards, cards or even laptops capable of supporting those but also certainly a cheap USB adapter as well).
Anyway, I’m just going to leave it at that, I think I’ve said a lot on the subject to numerous people and do not have much more to add other than this is most likely solvable and outside of severe edge cases, solvable without expert knowledge considering the timeframe.
In a GxP environment with bespoke pharmaceutical equipment you are spending anywhere from 1-4000 collective labour hours and anywhere from 50k-250k for a control system upgrade, URS/TRS/SDS, Code risk assessment and review, and Qualification. To give you an idea, on a therapeutic manufacturing plant you’re looking at a handful of two inch binders for the end to end system.
You are also (and more importantly) taking your resources off BAU or revenue generating improvement work for this project. You have a validated and qualified system, and even if you are spending $10-20k for a $500 like for like IPC or control card, the cost benefits of another 5 years is worth it.
If your equipment is a medical device, such as a diagnostic microscope, add another few binders of paperwork and regulator sign off. There’s a reason the equipment is so expensive
If you get into the food industry, or general manufacturing the barriers to upgrade are much less. For your machine shop running floppy disks, it’s a case of the external cost would approach the cost of a new machine, and the existing machine is fine.
As a maintenance professional this is the sort of risk management we conduct on an ongoing basis.
Obviously the company is the bad guy here. But if the research data is so important, the lab should try to solve their problem instead of just praying that the 20 year old machine won’t fail.
Because it’s often not worth the investment. You would pay a shit ton for a one time conversion of data that is still accessible.
If the software became open source, because the company abandoned it, then that cost could potentially be brought down significantly.
You are also missing the parts where functional hardware loses support. Which is even worse in my opinion.
Still accessible for now and less likely to be accessible as the clock ticks and less likely that there is compatible hardware to replace.
If it isn’t worth the investment, then what’s the problem here? So what if the data is lost? It obviously isn’t worth it.
OK but that isn’t a counter point to what I said. If the hardware never fails, there is no problem either. What does that matter? And who cares if it was FOSS (though I am a FOSS advocate). What if nobody maintains it?
It doesn’t matter because these aren’t the reality of the problems that this person is dealing with. Why not make some FOSS that takes care of the issue and runs on something that isn’t on borrowed time and can endure not only hardware changes but operating system changes? That’d be relevant. It goes back to my point doesn’t it? Why not hire this person.
Clean room reverse engineering has case law precedent that essentially make this low risk legally (certainly nil if the right’s holder is defunct).
I didn’t miss the point. I even made the point of having at least ~20 years to plan for it in the budget. Also the hardware has already lost support or there wouldn’t be an issue, would there? You could just keep sustaining it without relying on a diminishing supply.
Or are we talking about some hypothetical hardware that wasn’t mentioned? I guess I would have missed that point since it was never made.