Campaigners urge EU to mandate 15 years of OS updates
-
I think Apple is responsible by releasing new APIs that are only available on the specific iOS version. Rarely have they back ported functionality to older iOS versions. Apple draggles shinny new APIs in front of developers causing them to update the minimum version.
Yeah Apple rapidly dropping support with Intel Macs is really terrible. I have a 2018 Mac mini that is already obsolete, what a joke. That was the last Mac I buy.
The shiny new APIs are rarely required for most apps tbh. Hence Revolut having a fully functional neobank app with minimum iOS version of 13 (meaning you could run it on a 10 year old device right now). Wise actually has less functionality theoretically, but it requires iOS 16. Neither one of them does anything special in the client anyway, probably could make the same apps on iOS 10 APIs and not notice a difference, but nobody uses that anymore anyway.
I understand games, VR apps (lol vision pro) and such requiring the shiniest new APIs… Hell, even things like video players, etc - maybe Apple added some fancy new video codecs, etc. But basic business apps have no real reason to switch to the newest target version every year or 2.
-
Should OS makers, like Microsoft, be legally required to provide 15 years of security updates?
This seems backwards. Let’s just assume we’re always going to be willingly beholden to tech giants, and so we’re going to pass a law to make our masters treat us well.
Maybe instead campaign for a law that says all publicly funded computer resources must be reliably usable for 15 years. So you either go FOSS and save money too, or you get guarantees in writing before you hand over your hand over money to the people who won’t even let you see what their code is doing on your hardware.
-
This seems backwards. Let’s just assume we’re always going to be willingly beholden to tech giants, and so we’re going to pass a law to make our masters treat us well.
Maybe instead campaign for a law that says all publicly funded computer resources must be reliably usable for 15 years. So you either go FOSS and save money too, or you get guarantees in writing before you hand over your hand over money to the people who won’t even let you see what their code is doing on your hardware.
You can already patch windows as much as you want.
-
I didnt my finance and IT team did.
If you ever want to create a google fan, make them use M365
seems you were already a Google fan, they are a unique breed of horrible.
-
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 too long, it doesn’t match the state of the industry or technological progress.
How is this too long? I would consider it a reasonable amount of time to receive security updates on a computer.
I have a notebook that I bought in 2012. It can run Ubuntu LTS 24.04, which is supported until 2034, without issue. There is no indication that the next release will stop supporting this hardware. I don’t see why Microsoft couldn’t provide this.
-
You can already patch windows as much as you want.
You can? How do you do that?
-
Yep, exactly this. You can bypass the TPM and Processor requirements, but at some point it will come back to bite someone in the butt.
Microsoft with the 24H2 update broke Windows 11 for older systems (like Core2Duo, which are already ancient) due to a lack of required processor instructions. I’ve seen systems running under QEMU, and also on newer systems like the AMD Ryzen Zen1 platform experience “Unsupported Processor” BSODs preventing the system from booting.
Even outside of that, Microsoft doesn’t deploy the yearly feature roll-ups to systems with unsupported hardware, even if Windows 11 is already installed. I’ve seen many unsupported systems end up stuck 1-2 builds behind, and they never see the update. They have to be manually updated using the same mechanisms that got Windows 11 installed in the first place.
Microsoft I believe, expects Windows 11 to be running on a minimum set of hardware, and that’s all they are qualifying it for. So older systems are going to eat it at some point if they are used in production.
The TPM checks are for security but, certainly not required if someone is willing to drop system security for some reason.
TPM is more about securing data from PC owners rather than for them. Since it’s there anyways, it is used to support bitlocker, but the reason they are pushing it so much is because it might (depending on whether it actually is secure) be able to allow content providers to allow users to view their content without needing to give them access to copy or edit it.
And there isn’t any guarantee that the uses that do benefit the user’s security don’t have some backdoor for approved crackers to get in. Like doesn’t the MS account store a copy of the recovery key for bitlocker? Which is nice for when the user needs it, but also comes in handy if MS wants to grant access to anyone else.
-
You can? How do you do that?
By replacing it with something better.
-
By replacing it with something better.
Yeah, I’ll just call up the CTO and ask for a new deployment of 300,000 VMs lmfao
-
I didn’t go into the specifics but I was thinking more in line with prosumer friendly linux distributions that can be dropped in to replace win 10. I know stuff like linux mint exists for that case.
Got it, thanks for the clarification.
-
You start high and negotiate down. If you start low, you’ll get even less
I guess, I am bad in capitalism 
-
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.
IBM providing 10 years for RHEL is doing most of the heavy lifting in the case of rocky linux
-
Should OS makers, like Microsoft, be legally required to provide 15 years of security updates?
Please mandate open bootloaders on devices, that’s what we truly need.
