3 ms·

Says someone who has never experienced a data loss bug.

• silisili 2y ago
  Was the data really important? Is it worth holding people's data hostage because of subpar developers? I'm not at all saying that soft deletion shouldn't exist. I'm arguing that hard deletion should be the default, and then soft deletion practices should have some justification. Instead the industry chose to just soft delete everywhere, which is good for the industry, and bad for users.
  • fc417fc802 2y ago
    Soft delete is a sensible default to prevent all sorts of problems. It's almost always good for a human to be able to get into the system and revert things if something bad happened. It should just be followed up by hard delete several days or weeks later. The general policy should never be to hold things indefinitely. As a practical example I have soft deletion for more or less everything on my desktop. There are periodic filesystem level snapshots and those stick around until I manually GC them. It has saved me more than once.
  • nickm12 2y ago
    The industry chose the default of "data that is stored in durable storage is probably important". Sorry, I just don't see how that is bad for users when compared to the alternative default of "data that is stored in durable storage should be irretrievably deleted immediately".