Rus Articles Journal

Whether the owner is necessary to information?


Any thing in this world belong to someone. And the owner is interested in its preservation. He is grieved if loses hours or a portfolio, and rejoices if he finds them again. And the thing which did not become necessary to it can appear on a dump sooner or later. However with things everything is more reliably. Unclaimed they can long lie on a balcony, on an attic, under a bed, and years later unexpectedly catch sight.

With information - it is more difficult. That it did not disappear, behind it it is necessary to watch, make copies, to check for correctness. Let`s present such picture. Several people puzzled everyone with the problem write down results in the same base or library. They do not think of the fact that to their works there can be something. And the library has no responsible - the person who would watch its safety and in time copied. And so: successful work of such collective is possible only for the time being. Loss or damage of base will cause mutual reproaches, it is possible - a stop of urgent works.

Information without owner in the computer world is doomed to disappearance! It is important that the owner was interested in this information. Otherwise there can be such situation.

the Skilled employee conducted quite volume base of the handed-over models. The base represented set of files plus the file with the catalog. The enthusiasm to this work was not as the assignment was given over its usual volume of cases. But it is necessary, means it is necessary. She patiently accepted new practices, brought them in the catalog, watched that it was visible in a network. At certain moments it unwillingly made copies. About two months the base was not replenished. This time coincided with the next change of equipment.

When it was required to glance in base again, it turned out that its half is lost forever, and copies remained on the computers which went to other department. New users quickly got rid from unnecessary for them garbage .

When the ends urged to look for me, I did not tell that thought of loss. Moreover, helped to present before the chief business so that it had no doubts in objectivity of accident. And as the files accumulated in base were used usually once, and to the chief our problems were to heaven in two days we safely forgot about everything. The employee successfully continued to go about the own business. Still it seems to me that she also believed that its base - the victim of circumstances.

Yes, misters programmers, at the moments, difficult for ourselves we can get out. But for ourselves we have to acquire firmly:


The good owner is capable to provide even the real natural disaster. This my unshakable opinion.

There was with me such case.

there Arrived the new batch of computers. Old we transferred to the next departments, previously rewriting information. It was necessary to fuss quickly because production stood.

At the same time being engaged in several cases, I tried to throw source texts of the settlement programs created within several years not by one person. Bustled and mixed sequence of actions. It was necessary to copy, then to remove. I at first removed...

And when came round - there was nothing to copy already. The reference option of a huge number of programs ceased to exist. I was surprised to myself. How I could be mistaken so? With such experience? It was necessary to address beforehand created copies. Those were in a fine state and not in one place. Only two last updates were gone.

But feeling always gloomy when you lose a standard and it is forced to pass to the copy. And suddenly there still something became outdated? *** And now present to

that we sit at well laid table, and the host says a toast:

- Cars become outdated, disks refuse, files can be incidentally removed So we will drink for the good owner who will not allow it to happen!]