Should OS makers, like Microsoft, be legally required to provide 15 years of security updates?
I have no sympathy for anyone using microsoft products.
They made their bed, now they get to sleep in it.
Microsoft’s plan to end Windows 10 support next month — which may make an estimated 400 million PCs obsolete
I don’t get this. Can’t those PCs update to the new version? Yes, I am very aware that win11 is a shit show and win10 was better.
But Ubuntu also has a similar support policy for updates:
Ubuntu LTS versions get five years of updates, while non-LTS only gets nine months.
Would all the Linux versions out there be subjected the same 15 years of updates??
You don’t typically pay to run Linux distros. They’re open-source. I can’t imagine they’d be subject to this.
Upgrades are more seamless as well, it’s definitely a bit more blurry of a process. Plus Ubuntu releases twice a year, so their versions are more like the equivalent of Microsoft’s service packs (or whatever they call them now) but on a rolling basis.
Correct, the “obsolete” PCs can’t update to Windows 11. The Windows 11 update forces certain hardware support that a lot of devices don’t have. The security this hardware provides is mainly in someone physically removing data from your PC. As such it’s very business oriented but affects all versions of Windows 11.
It’s not business oriented, it provides a unique ID attached to the machine, cryptographically proven.
Next step is to use that unique ID to identify you on the internet and digital life. Ending all privacy.
You think this is far fetched? Kernel-level anti-cheat for games already does this and bans the machine from playing that game ever again.
Couldn’t you theoretically swap out the tpm chip? Or spoof/emulate it? If not, how do VMs run Win11, do they just inherit the host tpm chip and that’s that? I feel like this was the same goal of having a mac address on each device, and it became irrelevant in short order.
No, OS makers should just not make their OS bloated with useless shit, stealing your data and have arbitrary system requirements. I think 15 years of OS updates is excessive unless we’re talking about servers or very specific workflows. IMO 5-10 years is enough.
That said, for some operating systems it doesn’t even make sense to support for THAT long, because how they are designed (A lot of Linux distros for example). It turns out, if you don’t break users’ workflow, they don’t mind to upgrade.
I agree with most of that, but there are loads of embedded systems still running the equivalent of Windows XP and they’re chugging along just fine. That OS still receives updates and ending that would break a lot of backend stuff. Mostly banking.
Boeing just started making planes which don’t rely on floppy disks for updates. That will continue on the older part of the fleet until it’s no longer feasible to procure the disks or the planes are no longer airworthy. I mean, why not? If you only need to store a few mbs for something critical, it’s not a bad choice of medium.
If a system is secure, reliable and works for decades without complaint, there’s no need to fix that.
I think Microsoft should be punished with forcing to release the Windows kernel source code.
Please no, just imagine the influx of 0-days
I’ll bring the popcorn
15 years is too long, it doesn’t match the state of the industry or technological progress.
If anything this slows down innovation which leads me to suspect the 15 year idea was though of by someone who dislikes any technical changes.
15 years is actually reasonable.
I have a ten year old laptop with an i7 processor, 16 GB RAM, and 1 TB SSD. It still does most things, I bought it for initially just fine. Granted this was one of the best laptops you could buy at the time.
Apple stopped supporting it with a current version of macOS a couple of years ago sadly. It’s still possible to patch newer versions to install and run on the old machine, but it’s a bit of a hassle.
Pretty sure Rocky Linux provides updates for 10 years.
It’s not asking too much for multi-billion dollar corporations to provide 15 years of updates.
They have more than enough resources.
Before Microsoft demanded TPM 2.0, you could install the latest version of Windows on extremely old hardware. Easily reaching that 15 years. We had this already. And Windows 11 can easily run without TPM 2.0. Microsoft just has business reasons to demand it. So I don’t see how innovation is slowed down by this.
Fair like imagine if Microsoft was forced to support windows 8 for 15 years, a operating system people barely use, also some OSs arnt ran by huge companys
This is a prime example of legislators not understanding technology.
No. Maintain your own OS. Any country or group of countries should be doing so.
15 is an arbitrarily long time. I think forcing it to be open sourced upon the companies end of life is the better option
Then you can have a company that acquires the original failed company and provides “support” in the form of one bugfix per year.
All of these solutions are gamable except for requiring that the solution be open source from the get-go.
Or legislate that unsupported software becomes public domain or is open for development and the public can try and make the updates themselves.
Forcing people to upgrade entirely depends on the nature of the upgrades and the motive of the company. What we need is competition so there are alternatives for people to use if they don’t want to upgrade. But somehow Microsoft is not considered the monopoly of the PC OS market, despite being a monopoly, and uses that position to force changes nobody wants but them, like turning window into an AI data farming scheme that violates user privacy.
Or legislate that unsupported software becomes public domain
Solves a lot of issues.
Dude, I’m so ready. Linux supports processors that old, by enthusiasts for free.
This would almost certainly rule out Linux as an option. What Linux vendor feels comfortable committing to something, anything, for 15 years?
Because Linux is free software, we can implement the fixes ourselves.
Doing so with Windows or Crapple would literally be illegal.
Yes, but to fulfill that requirement the company would have to be around to review the code changes and merge and provide QA. For 15 years.
If the EU is going to pay for the developers, sure. I’d even go higher and say make it 50 years. Otherwise make your own OS or use Linux.
What we REALLY need is to curb microsoft’s market dominance. If more alternatives for OS and usable replacements for MS office em would exist, this would not be a problem and would not need to hamper innovation for the sake of back porting (the main counter-argument as a dev).
Hmmm, I don’t agree. The trend is in the opposite direction. Microsoft Windows used to have a larger market share and supported hardware indefinitely. Now that their market share has shrunk, they are also limiting support for older hardware. This only shows correlation, not causation, but it does show that more competition has not improved the issue and that we need laws to do that instead. MacOS, the primary competitor to Microsoft Windows which also has Microsoft Office available, only supports their hardware for 6-8 years as well.
Edit: just to add, if anything, this actually shows that more competition and reduced market share probably increases the pressure to cut support for older hardware because it probably becomes less profitable to do so.
This is stupid.
15 years is a massive time to just update your OS.
15 years ago instagram didn’t exist, the iPad was new, and people were just updating from Vista to Windows 7. I think Hadoop was just created then.
That is a massive amount of time to support software that would have almost no architectural protection against things like heartbleed.
Windows used to support really old hardware, I believe more than 15 years old until they introduced the new requirements for particular CPU models and TPM 2.0 chips. If anything, I feel that 15 years is too short. iPads and Hadoop have nothing to do with PC hardware.
Instagram has existed for 14 years and 11 months. I think you might be pushing it on the not 15 years.
But more importantly though, Windows XP was supported for 18 years…
So it’s not like it can’t be done.
"Microsoft’s decision to end support for Windows 10 could make 400 million computers obsolete
This is more stupid, and I absolutely agree with the article it shouldn’t be legal to end support of an OS this quickly, mind you this is not update to a new OS, like is common on phones, but mostly security updates for the OS you purchased with the device.
I absolutely think 10 years should be a minimum, but for PC, I can easily see an argument for 15 years, as many systems are purpose built, and should keep working even if an OS is discontinued.A similar argument can be made for phones, but maybe that should just be 10 or maybe even just 5 years, which very few phones have. My vote is on 10 years, because what some companies have been doing for a long time, only supporting security updates for 3 years is not acceptable IMO. If the phone is free to install custom ROM unhindered, I would be more understanding, but phones are generally locked, potentially rendering them worthless if updates are not available.
I think I’d prefer if there was a minimum updates guarantee that OS sellers would have to disclose, but even then I’m more in favour of other companies being able to pick up the work by making sure devices have their bootloader unlockable after they don’t get any more updates for X amount of time, rather than add burden to OS makers, because forcing people to support a project for Y amount of years would really harm indie developers releasing Linux distros and the like
rather than add burden to OS makers
It’s not a burden for the OS maker, except when the OS is the product, and in that case it’s only fair.
With Android the phone maker adapt the OS to their phones and flavor of Android, if they can’t handle maintaining it, they can use vanilla. Google is the OS maker, and I think they can handle the burden.
My ThinkPad x230 will soon turn 13 (since it was manufactured, I picked it up second hand from a business that went bankrupt). It’s still alive and kicking, just not with Windows. The hardware is dated, but for what I do it’s good enough. I only replaced the battery and the screen. I don’t care for instagram or any of that crap, this machine chugged along for 13 years, it will chug at least for another 5. Don’t let hardware manufacturers normalize dunking perfectly capable good hardware into a landfill because it hurts their profits. If you need any further proof just look into the old Apple hardware modding and some of the stuff they pulled off.
15 years is a massive time to just update your OS.
The last version of Windows 10 (22H2) is nothing like the RTM release from 2015 (1507). 1507 still has Cortana and their failed “Continuum” concept.
Essentially we are asking Microsoft to support Windows 10 22H2 for another ~5 years, which is reasonable considering 22H2 is a just under 3 years old.
And yet people are bitching because Windows 10 is getting cut off after 10 years of support. Raise it to 15 and people will just bitch at the 15 year mark.
I think major factors in people bitching about the Windows 10 EOL is that a) Windows 10 was explicitly marketed as the final version of Windows and b) Windows 11 is so unappealing that even companies are reluctant to upgrade.
Normally, that wouldn’t be a big problem. We had dud releases before. Windows Vista had few friends due to compatibility issues but was workable. Besides, 7 was launched shortly after Vista’s EOL. Likewise, Windows 8’s absurd UI choices made it deeply unpopular but it was quickly followed by 8.1, which fixed that. And Windows 10 again followed shortly after 8’s EOL (and well before 8.1’s).
Windows 11, however, combines a hard to justify spec hike with a complete absence of appealing new features. The notable new features that are there are raising concerns about data safety. In certain industries (e.g. medical, legal, and finance), Recall/Copilot Vision is seen as dangerous as it might access protected information and is not under the same control that the company has over its document stores. That increases the vector for a data breach that could lead to severe legal and reputational penalties.
Microsoft failed to satisfyingly address these concerns. And there’s not even hope of a new version of Windows releasing a few months after 10’s EOL; Windows 12 hasn’t even been announced yet.
It’s no wonder that companies are now complaining about Windows 10’s support window being too short.
Nothing says ‘circular economy’ like Microsoft stranding 400 million PCs
This might be a silly question but would this not be a good idea for a start up company that recycle computer parts?
would this not be a good idea for a start up company that recycle computer parts?
I really don’t think so. Computer recycling already seems to be a low profit business, as evidenced by there not being any large companies that do it (that I’m aware of). This number of computers flooding the market would probably make it even less profitable. Sure, it may be profitable for some small businesses, but nothing on the scale required to address the problem.
that’s what the greatest technician that’s ever lived does.
Don’t manufacturers purposefuly destroy the computers and such just to ensure that doesn’t happen?
