Campaigners urge EU to mandate 15 years of OS updates
-
This would almost certainly rule out Linux as an option. What Linux vendor feels comfortable committing to something, anything, for 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
-
Should OS makers, like Microsoft, be legally required to provide 15 years of security updates?
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 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.
-
Should OS makers, like Microsoft, be legally required to provide 15 years of security updates?
No. Maintain your own OS. Any country or group of countries should be doing so.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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
-
Should OS makers, like Microsoft, be legally required to provide 15 years of security updates?
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Should OS makers, like Microsoft, be legally required to provide 15 years of security updates?
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.
-
No. Maintain your own OS. Any country or group of countries should be doing so.
Yes exactly
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Star_OS -
Should OS makers, like Microsoft, be legally required to provide 15 years of security updates?
I think Microsoft should be punished with forcing to release the Windows kernel source code.
-
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??
-
Should OS makers, like Microsoft, be legally required to provide 15 years of security updates?
This is a prime example of legislators not understanding technology.
-
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??
No, Windows 11 added extra, unneeded hardware requirements.
Obsolete in this case actually means obsolete. Windows 11 literally blocks the update because you do not meet requirements, such as not having a TPM.
Technically, there are ways to bypass this, but not for a casual user (and it probably breaks some ToS)
-
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??
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.
-
“owner” is typically the maintainer,
Nope, AFAIK that is not legally applicable, that is very clear with licenses like MIT BSD etc, and for GPL in all versions it’s very explicitly stated in the license.
You can also release as simply public domain, which very obviously means nobody owns as it is owned by everybody.
Generally if you give something away for free, you can’t be claimed to be the owner.
I have no idea where that idea should come from, some typical anti EU alarmists maybe? And I bet there is zero legal precedent for that. And I seriously doubt any lawyer would support your claim.If however you choose a license where the creator keeps ownership it may be different, but then it’s not FOSS.
As far as I understand the license doesn’t matter at all for EU regulation, other than “non-free” software is treated even worse.
Generally if you give something away for free, you can’t be claimed to be the owner.
The CRA from what I can tell applies to software given away for free, sadly. I’m not a lawyer, though. But you can perhaps see why people don’t trust the EU.
-
As far as I understand the license doesn’t matter at all for EU regulation, other than “non-free” software is treated even worse.
Generally if you give something away for free, you can’t be claimed to be the owner.
The CRA from what I can tell applies to software given away for free, sadly. I’m not a lawyer, though. But you can perhaps see why people don’t trust the EU.
If it’s proprietary it doesn’t, between proprietary and FOSS it absolutely does for the reasons I already stated.
