Campaigners urge EU to mandate 15 years of OS updates

I think it does in some cases, like if you buy a System 76 computer with PopOS, or you buy a server with Red Hat.
However if you install a Linux OS yourself, that is available free of charge, there isn’t any money to claim back, and it would be illogical if there should be demands on updates.

I think logically there needs to be money involved, so if you download PopOS you’re on your own, but if you bought a computer with PopOS installed it is part of a package.

I’m not a lawyer, but from my experience this is how things typically work.

Edit PS:
If it’s FOSS or FLOSS there also technically isn’t any owner, so there is no legal person to make a claim against.

Of course. Make another regulation only big corps can follow. To punish them, of course. This is punishment.

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?

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 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

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.

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.

Fuck it. Force them from release. 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Abandonware must be open sourced, publishing a new version doesn’t count as a exception.

The jank oh my god the jank

that’s what the greatest technician that’s ever lived does.

The EU has been so far bad at making sure FOSS isn’t seen as a paid product in the eyes of regulation, even in cases where it’s clearly unpaid, see here. They can’t be trusted to get this differentiation right.

Therefore, unlockable bootloader seems like the better idea. Get people to Linux and open Android variants if the closed-source companies won’t serve them.

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.

Well, maybe tell Microsoft and others to stop sucking in these technological advances they treat as shiny misunderstood toys that are forced down everyone’s throats and make everyone’s lives a lot harder than they’re supposedly making easier.

I am not arguing against the idea of upgrading at all or avoiding security at all. What I am always tired of, is just seeing the direction Microsoft takes and then telling people to shove off into their shitty new ecosystem for the sake of security. Like no, you’re watering down your OS and dumbing down everything while telling millions of users like “well, uh, like it because we’re Microsoft so fuck you”.

And nothing is improving or giving people the strong urge to immediately upgrade because of said directions and choices.

Which is why we have this delayed lapse in people just stretching out these support cycles who’re not interested in hopping to the next OS, because they aren’t liking what they see and sometimes experience on another’s computer that has that latest OS version.

By the time Windows 10 is truly done, Windows 11 has its announcement for the last of its updates and by the time Microsoft moves to 12 in however they handle it, maybe then.