2 ms·
And the people using it multiple times a year delete it afterwards?
by Dylan16807 1y ago
And the people using it multiple times a year delete it afterwards?
- RealStickman_ 1y agorelying on random local copies as a backup strategy is not a strategy.
- bufferoverflow 1y ago[dead]
- bryant 1y ago> And the people using it multiple times a year delete it afterwards? The people wouldn't, but in the environments I'm thinking of, security policies might. What you're leaning into is a high-risk backup strategy that would rely mostly on luck to get something remotely close to the current version back online. It's pretty reckless.
- darkwater 1y ago> The people wouldn't, but in the environments I'm thinking of, security policies might. In environments that go so far (deleting local checkouts of code out of security concerns), I bet they do have a mirror/copy of the version controlled code.
- Lammy 1y agoMore like “none of the people who worked on it are at the company any more”
- shakna 1y agoThey often only have a binary that you would have to reverse engineer. Source code gets lost. To step outside just utility programs, the reason why Command & Conquer didn't have a remaster was: > I'm not going to get into this conversation, but I feel this needs to be answered. During this project of getting the games on Steam, no source code from any legacy games showed up in the archives.