No, it really isn’t. Anyone who uses that word that way is just factually incorrect, and probably pretty irresponsible depending on the context. Software should not tell lies.
I think you are referring to tombstoning. That's usually a temporary process that may immediately delete the underlying data, keeping a tombstone to ensure the deletion propagates to all storage nodes. A compaction process purges the underlying data (if still present) and the tombstones after a suitable delay. It's a fancy delete that takes some time to process, but the data is eventually gone. You could turn off the compaction, if you wanted.
I believe Kafka make deletion difficult, since it's an append-only log, but Kafka doesn't work well with laws that require deletion of data, so I don't believe it's a popular choice any longer (I.E. isn't modern).
Every modern file system works like this too. Then there’s copy-on-write snapshotting and SSD wear leveling to worry about. Data isn’t actually destroyed until the space is reused to store something else at an indeterminate point in the future.
Or when its encryption key is overwritten.
But it probably is a good idea to stop returning deleted data from web APIs.
this is why when I'm building confirm UI, I prefer the term "destroy?" on the confirm action. It's much clearer to the user that this is a destructive and irreversible action and we will be removing this data/state.
No, deleted is a word for deleted. But we started saying things were "deleted", while our eyes flicked to the stack of backup tapes in the corner, acknowledging the white lie, because really deleting things conflicted with other priorities and was hard. And we left it there, until privacy regulations came along and it turned out not using the normal definition of deleted could get you sued. So IMO Github is wide open to paying damages to the first person able to demonstrate them.
"Bought" is just a fancy word for "granted a license for usage, subject to terms and conditions, which may be revoked at any time, for any reason, without any warning"
No, it really isn’t. Anyone who uses that word that way is just factually incorrect, and probably pretty irresponsible depending on the context. Software should not tell lies.
> delete: remove or obliterate (written or printed matter), especially by drawing a line through it or marking it with a delete sign
Which is, indeed, what every modern database does.
I think you are referring to tombstoning. That's usually a temporary process that may immediately delete the underlying data, keeping a tombstone to ensure the deletion propagates to all storage nodes. A compaction process purges the underlying data (if still present) and the tombstones after a suitable delay. It's a fancy delete that takes some time to process, but the data is eventually gone. You could turn off the compaction, if you wanted.
I believe Kafka make deletion difficult, since it's an append-only log, but Kafka doesn't work well with laws that require deletion of data, so I don't believe it's a popular choice any longer (I.E. isn't modern).
14 replies →
Every modern file system works like this too. Then there’s copy-on-write snapshotting and SSD wear leveling to worry about. Data isn’t actually destroyed until the space is reused to store something else at an indeterminate point in the future.
Or when its encryption key is overwritten.
But it probably is a good idea to stop returning deleted data from web APIs.
this is why when I'm building confirm UI, I prefer the term "destroy?" on the confirm action. It's much clearer to the user that this is a destructive and irreversible action and we will be removing this data/state.
*obviously doesn't apply to soft deletes.
No, deleted is a word for deleted. But we started saying things were "deleted", while our eyes flicked to the stack of backup tapes in the corner, acknowledging the white lie, because really deleting things conflicted with other priorities and was hard. And we left it there, until privacy regulations came along and it turned out not using the normal definition of deleted could get you sued. So IMO Github is wide open to paying damages to the first person able to demonstrate them.
It's tolerated for there to be temporary inaccessible copies sticking around when something is deleted.
What GitHub is doing here is neither temporary nor inaccessible.
"Bought" is just a fancy word for "granted a license for usage, subject to terms and conditions, which may be revoked at any time, for any reason, without any warning"