“Backup” is an insidious misnomer
I was doing a backup of my disk this afternoon, and I noticed the term “backup” is used by software in a really misleading way.
The term is typically used in a few senses, which I want to separate.
- You can “back up” your data, or “do a backup”, by copying it — “I backed up.”
- That produces a “backup copy” somewhere else — “I have a backup.”
- The copy “backs you up” by ensuring you won’t lose data — “I am backed up.”
Suppose you tell your computer to back up your data (sense 1). Then it goes and does its thing, and you think “Now my copy backs me up” (sense 3).
A month later, your disk crashes, and you think, “Good thing I’m backed up” (3). Then you go to restore from your backup copy (2) but your data’s not all there, because the copy was old.
In other words, doing a backup (1) means you have a backup copy (2), but it does not actually mean you are backed up, in the sense that you will not lose data (3). But it’s a natural mistake, because it’s three meanings in one word.
You are backed up (3) only to the degree that your backup copy (2) is current and available. It backs you up less and less as time goes on and your data changes. By focusing on “doing backups” (1), software glosses over this, and therefore so do users. Then they lose data.
Of course the best thing would be if everybody backed up frequently and automatically. But I think many users are misled into thinking they don’t need to.
Simple changes in terminology could make it more clear. I suggest we strip out the magic:
- Call the “backup copy” a “safe copy”.
- Call “backing up” simply “updating the safe copy”.
- Use the term “back up” only in reference to data safety.
If you click the “Backup” button, you could shrug and forget about it. But if you clicked the “Update Safe Copy” button, you might be sure to do it again later.
See also jwz.
