And the people using it multiple times a year delete it afterwards?

RealStickman_ 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

relying on random local copies as a backup strategy is not a strategy.

	▲	bufferoverflow 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲

shakna 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They 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.

▲

bryant 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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 a day ago \| parent [-]
		> 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 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

More like “none of the people who worked on it are at the company any more”