Most of the arguments against digital books, or files generally, seem to assume no one ever does the work to update the files. Bitrot, unsupported formats, etc.
This seems to be quickly followed by some pretty clear survivorship bias argument about paper. A touch of sun, a dab of moisture, poor quality materials, the family pet, fire, and a paper book is toast.
I have files, ebooks, images, documents dating back to the 1990s because they're important and I do the work every so often to refresh them and keep them stored safely. Same sort of work people do for paper books in places like libraries (personal or otherwise).
Neither seems to be more or less durable. Ones, shorter existence than the other doesn't lend aid to proof for either side of the argument.
This seems to be quickly followed by some pretty clear survivorship bias argument about paper. A touch of sun, a dab of moisture, poor quality materials, the family pet, fire, and a paper book is toast.
I have files, ebooks, images, documents dating back to the 1990s because they're important and I do the work every so often to refresh them and keep them stored safely. Same sort of work people do for paper books in places like libraries (personal or otherwise).
Neither seems to be more or less durable. Ones, shorter existence than the other doesn't lend aid to proof for either side of the argument.