Software deprotection or full Kryoflux IPF/SPS preservation? Which do you prefer and why?
If you pick software deprotection, documentation, and conversion into a widely used format, you're embracing preservation in the finest. Think internet archive and other repositories. Think emulators, and the ability to transfer to a real machine via ADTpro or SD/CompactFlash. Think utilities that let you work with the information on the disk on a PC.
If you pick Kryoflux, you're getting tied into the IPF format and all kinds of non-support, no SD/CompactFlash interfaces, no support for ADTpro, and definitely no support for emulators. Not even PC utilities to read/write/edit the disk images for use on real hardware either. With all Kryoflux' hoops and technicalities, this isn't preservation at all. You're just pouring it into a different bottle. It's smaller than niche.
A comment about this..
"This definitely should be a priority. However, I think that instead of cracking these titles, the copy protection should be preserved as well. The thing about copy protection is that it’s also historically relevant as much as the cracks that have been used to defeat them. An imaging solution such as the Kryoflux has the ability to preserve the media at the lowest level and defeat any known copy protection. The issue that may arise is that to play these games or run these applications, a format needs to exist to contain the lower level information that the copy protection routines look for. Since the Kryoflux is linked to the Software Preservation Society, they have come up with the IPF format for this reason. The shortcomings of this format is the lack of support in emulation due to incompatible licenses and the need for the Software Preservation Society to manually check each raw track dump and produce an IPF that preserves the relevant data. Even with these shortcomings, I think it’s the current best solution to preservation. I’m curious if this was known before hand."
Of course it was known before hand. That's why it isn't popular. The limitations are too much. If it was the better solution then it'd be widespread. And instead of the .DSK format we'd be jamming IPF. With IPF everything is ridiculous because it would be no more accessible than the original disks. Probably even less.
Preservation is not just preservation, it has to include accessibility, otherwise why bother saving something? Save it only for it to sit and rot and fade away?
The way that guy sounds is as if copy protection is more important than the information on the disk. So, again, why bother?
Good documentation of the deprotection process is better, because it sheds light on how it worked. Better than a bunch of disk-grinding noises! And interesting. Possibly even to the layperson.
I never cared much for IPF & SPS and Kryoflux. And the current state of affairs seems to prove it.