Should OS makers, like Microsoft, be legally required to provide 15 years of security updates?
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??
I think Microsoft should be punished with forcing to release the Windows kernel source code.
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.
This comes after e-waste watchers revealed that 75 million iPhones could be rendered obsolete – tipping the scales at around 1.2 million kilograms of e-waste – following the release of iOS 26.
Not strictly true because the phones they counted here will still get security updates for 2-3 years AFAIK. 7 year old phones, mind you. But yeah, no more feature updates. Which are so meaningless these days anyway.
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.
Or an established player in the market that wants to keep competitors out (but I guess in a way that is someone who dislikes change). While legislation like this can sometimes be great (e.g. the recent changes forcing longer support for mobile phones) there comes a point where it cuts the other way and it becomes an entry barrier.
Imo the better solution would be to legislate what happens after support ends. Like forcing the disclosure of at least some documentation that allows others to continue servicing the product or at least transfer out data and install other software on the device.
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
No. Maintain your own OS. Any country or group of countries should be doing so.
Yes exactly :D https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Star_OS
That sounds like an insane duration, even LTS distros are not usually anything like 15 years
this isn’t about the age of the OS, it’s the age of the device. I can install linux on a device from 20 years ago if not more.
Ahh, so the win11 arbitrary hardware requirements bullshit
I don’t know. just the other day somebody on lemmy was asking about installing a 32bit linux distro on an old netbook and the majority of comments were discussing whether there was any practical reason for distros to continue 32-bit support.
That’s unfortunate, but still leaves you 20 years worth of devices if they drop 32-bit.
They didn’t say you could not do version upgrade…
yeah but you don’t pay 150euros for it + all the ads and stuffs
but yeah, I don’t see the point of this, it’s clearly aimed at Microsoft, and at this point alternative solutions exist
I almost feel like the compromise we will eventually land on is that if an OS maker like Microsoft wants to continue advertising on your OS they have to take some liability for its security.
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.
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?
I would prefer if they force the companies to unlock root and boot-loader, when they not ship security updates anymore for a device.
I’d add the hardware drivers must be open sourced at the end of support as well, and no drm, patent, reverse engineering legal protections for a out of support Device/chipset
Fuck it. Force them from release date. There’s no reason for them to dictate what you can and cannot run on the hardware you purchase. If they can’t compete by providing a better OS or software, and must rely on anti-competitive models to profit, then they don’t deserve to waste the planets resources.
Fair enough, just thought proposal above would have higher chances to get approved 😇
You start high and negotiate down. If you start low, you’ll get even less
Abandonware must be open sourced, publishing a new version doesn’t count as a exception.
deleted by creator
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.
Just require any new operating systems to support 15 year old hardware. We should require manufacturers to provide 15 years of UEFI and firmware updates too.
That is way more sensible, than the other way around.
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).
Linux and all its flavors?
What’s wrong with libreoffice or anyoffice? For a large percentage of users, Linux is fine, especially as many applications have an online option. For the stuff I do, in Linux, online Office is more than sufficient.
An org I work with provides me with a 365 license, but I I’m more comfortable in Libreoffice.
Office is used bythe majority, but majority doesn’t mean they are right, they are simply more.
The jank oh my god the jank
Windows is far more jank than a lot of Linux distros/desktop environments.
Like…
- Multiple different right click menus?
- No consistent and cohesive design language even throughout system or first party apps?
- Having to search online for an exe download page, download, open downloads folder, double click, click next through an installer?
- Updates that happen when you don’t want them to, take forever, and break things?
- Fucking ads everywhere?
- Web results in your start menu before actual stuff on your system
- Multiple settings apps?
- Sleep that doesn’t work?
- Convoluted process for setting things as the default app?
- Dark mode that’s only functional for some apps?
It’s actually incredible how much money Microsoft has, and how much more they spend than probably all Linux DEs combined, but they’ve still yet to fix so much low hanging fruit.
I have had more issues with formatting between ms 365 desktop and ms 365 online than I’ve had with libreoffice
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.
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.
Don’t manufacturers purposefuly destroy the computers and such just to ensure that doesn’t happen?
No. Manufacturers have no say in what happens to computer hardware after is sold.
Some companies may destroy the hard drives to make sure no data gets out. Some companies will remove the memory as well.
that’s what the greatest technician that’s ever lived does.
There are dozens of us out here patiently awaiting a bunch of reasonably powerful new Linux machines.
