3 ms·

> I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a product like Windows 7 to come with essential support for a significant period of time, perhaps based on the expec

by scholia 11y ago

> I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a product like Windows 7 to come with essential support for a significant period of time, perhaps based on the expected working lifetime of devices where the software is normally installed. Under Microsoft's software lifecycle policy, operating systems are normally supported for 10 years. So, for example, we already know that support for Windows 7 ends in 2020, unless it's extended. http://windows.microsoft.com/en-GB/windows/lifecycle http://windows.microsoft.com/en-GB/windows/lifecycle The best LTS on Linux is 5 years, and used to be 3 years. The best lifecycle support on OS X is, oh well, pick a number. A small number. If you bought Windows 7 in 2009 and took a free upgrade to Windows 10 then you're supported until 2025, if your hardware lasts that long. So you'd have got roughly 15 years' use of an operating system for roughly $40. It's obviously terrible value....

Silhouette 11y ago
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that Microsoft's current support periods are somehow bad. On the contrary, I think they have historically been by far the best in the industry, and that this has been a strong argument in favour of building serious software on Windows. All I'm saying is that a significant period of support -- longer than the 3 years the posts I was replying to seemed to be suggesting -- is a reasonable expectation for this sort of commercial software, because the developers are supplying an imperfect product in the first place. In contrast, if the new version of Windows with its compulsory updates removes that ability to keep what you actually bought working as well as it was when you bought it, that is not a good thing, any more than it is when Apple have dumped support for old versions of iOS or OS X well before the end of the useful lifetime of devices they ran on. The position that the software industry wants to keep changing things so everyone else should be forced to keep up whether or not it's actually in their interests is not something I can support.
- scholia 11y ago
  > The position that the software industry wants to keep changing things so everyone else should be forced to keep up whether or not it's actually in their interests is not something I can support. Oddly enough, Microsoft already tried that. They ended up with people running 14-year-old code (which cost them money both short term and long term) and a major malware problem. Check out conficker devastating businesses and costing people a fortune ... almost wholly because they didn't install the patch for it. And these idiots are running supposedly-competent businesses or government departments. The business branches offer more control over taking updates, but this is a consumer operating system.
  - Silhouette 11y ago
    Again, this is conflating security patches with more general updates. As a personal anecdote, the only serious malware that has ever hit any system I run, as far as I'm aware, was a zero day exploit. The system was fully patched when it was hit. In contrast, the amount of productive time I have spent over the past few years recovering from problems caused by non-security-related software updates that I didn't particularly want but couldn't avoid if I wanted to keep the security patches is probably measured in weeks by now. I'm all for keeping systems secure, but when updates start to take priority over keeping systems useful, you have a problem. Most security patches are fairly low risk and have few if any unrelated side effects anyway, but that is certainly not the case with modern software updates more generally. Just look at the frustration of browser users with Mozilla constantly rearranging the UI or Google actively removing functionality from Chrome, or of course the number of users who never moved from Windows XP to Vista or from 7 to 8 because the changes weren't considered improvements. In the brave new world of Windows 10, the average individual user will be stuck with all the updates, security or otherwise, whether they want them or not. There's really no excuse for that, even in a consumer-focussed OS. Install updates by default, so less technical users get what they probably want? Sure. Block even knowledgeable users from choosing whether to install specific updates? The only time that makes a difference is if Microsoft want to force an update that the user does not want.
    - scholia 11y ago
      > Just look at the frustration of browser users with Mozilla constantly rearranging the UI or Google actively removing functionality from Chrome Welcome to the brave new world. (Apple removing functionality as well.) Windows 10 is moving to a continuous update process that is exactly like Gmail, Facebook and all web apps, and for exactly the same reasons. At least this avoids the "big bang" updates that left incompetent organizations running buggy, insecure 14-year-old code. (The buggy insecure new code actually does work a lot better ;-) > Block even knowledgeable users from choosing whether to install specific updates? How many are of those exist? As far as I can see, the number is between very, very small and zero, and even the best know far less about updates than Microsoft (because Microsoft can see tens of millions of PCs, and it has the source code). That very small number has a problem because Microsoft is trying to cater to a billion users who don't even pretend to such arcane knowledge. Otherwise, there's a business branch where you can delay updates for a few months, and one where you can effectively delay them forever.
ptman 11y ago
https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata http://linuxlifecycle.com/ http://linuxlifecycle.com/

by scholia 11y ago

Silhouette 11y ago

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that Microsoft's current support periods are somehow bad. On the contrary, I think they have historically been by far the best in the industry, and that this has been a strong argument in favour of building serious software on Windows. All I'm saying is that a significant period of support -- longer than the 3 years the posts I was replying to seemed to be suggesting -- is a reasonable expectation for this sort of commercial software, because the developers are supplying an imperfect product in the first place. In contrast, if the new version of Windows with its compulsory updates removes that ability to keep what you actually bought working as well as it was when you bought it, that is not a good thing, any more than it is when Apple have dumped support for old versions of iOS or OS X well before the end of the useful lifetime of devices they ran on. The position that the software industry wants to keep changing things so everyone else should be forced to keep up whether or not it's actually in their interests is not something I can support.

scholia 11y ago
> The position that the software industry wants to keep changing things so everyone else should be forced to keep up whether or not it's actually in their interests is not something I can support. Oddly enough, Microsoft already tried that. They ended up with people running 14-year-old code (which cost them money both short term and long term) and a major malware problem. Check out conficker devastating businesses and costing people a fortune ... almost wholly because they didn't install the patch for it. And these idiots are running supposedly-competent businesses or government departments. The business branches offer more control over taking updates, but this is a consumer operating system.
- Silhouette 11y ago
  Again, this is conflating security patches with more general updates. As a personal anecdote, the only serious malware that has ever hit any system I run, as far as I'm aware, was a zero day exploit. The system was fully patched when it was hit. In contrast, the amount of productive time I have spent over the past few years recovering from problems caused by non-security-related software updates that I didn't particularly want but couldn't avoid if I wanted to keep the security patches is probably measured in weeks by now. I'm all for keeping systems secure, but when updates start to take priority over keeping systems useful, you have a problem. Most security patches are fairly low risk and have few if any unrelated side effects anyway, but that is certainly not the case with modern software updates more generally. Just look at the frustration of browser users with Mozilla constantly rearranging the UI or Google actively removing functionality from Chrome, or of course the number of users who never moved from Windows XP to Vista or from 7 to 8 because the changes weren't considered improvements. In the brave new world of Windows 10, the average individual user will be stuck with all the updates, security or otherwise, whether they want them or not. There's really no excuse for that, even in a consumer-focussed OS. Install updates by default, so less technical users get what they probably want? Sure. Block even knowledgeable users from choosing whether to install specific updates? The only time that makes a difference is if Microsoft want to force an update that the user does not want.
  - scholia 11y ago
    > Just look at the frustration of browser users with Mozilla constantly rearranging the UI or Google actively removing functionality from Chrome Welcome to the brave new world. (Apple removing functionality as well.) Windows 10 is moving to a continuous update process that is exactly like Gmail, Facebook and all web apps, and for exactly the same reasons. At least this avoids the "big bang" updates that left incompetent organizations running buggy, insecure 14-year-old code. (The buggy insecure new code actually does work a lot better ;-) > Block even knowledgeable users from choosing whether to install specific updates? How many are of those exist? As far as I can see, the number is between very, very small and zero, and even the best know far less about updates than Microsoft (because Microsoft can see tens of millions of PCs, and it has the source code). That very small number has a problem because Microsoft is trying to cater to a billion users who don't even pretend to such arcane knowledge. Otherwise, there's a business branch where you can delay updates for a few months, and one where you can effectively delay them forever.

ptman 11y ago

https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata http://linuxlifecycle.com/ http://linuxlifecycle.com/