5 ms·

"Holding back the industry" No! I think we, the software industry, are very irresponsible when it comes to planned obsolescence [1]. Computers from 10 ye

"Holding back the industry" No! I think we, the software industry, are very irresponsible when it comes to __planned obsolescence__ [1]. Computers from 10 years ago are very capable of doing most things common users want to do nowadays. However, many modern operating systems and applications make these computers unusable. We are forcing users to upgrade software, and because of all the layers of cruft accumulated in this software, they are then forced to upgrade their hardware too. This just adds to a spiral of consumerism that is going to destroy our planet. Like most of us, I like developing with the latest high level fancy cutting edge stack; but we have to remember that it's not the society's duty to empower the tech industry but the other way around. It is our role to help people solve people's their problems, and in ways that are effective socially and ecologically and does not create waste. This also means, making sure that hardware does not become obsolete because of our carelessness, lazyness or selfabsorpion as software makers. Also, alternatives do exist. I know someone in Cordoba (Spain) that recently started a __slow computing__ cooperative, inspired by this article [2]. His goal is to bring tech experts and ordinary people together to build custom solutions adapted to their needs. They have users go to them and do an interview with them. Then, they make a GNU/Linux and libre software installation for them, often reusing old hardware, adapted to their personal needs, and do the teaching necessary. I find this a very interesting approach, that solves the security problem both by installing updated software that does not create hardware obsolescence, and educating users so they regain control of their machines. There is no valid excuse for Microsoft here. Your argument is the perfect example of how proprietary software puts end users as servants to the interest of owners of the proprietary code that control their machines. [1] https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Planned_obsolescence https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Planned_obsolescence [2] https://newrepublic.com/article/121832/pleasure-do-it-yourself-slow-computing https://newrepublic.com/article/121832/pleasure-do-it-yourse...

linkregister 10y ago
Whether the OS is proprietary isn't the important facet of this issue. The case for encouraging users to move off of Windows XP is the same as the case for encouraging users to move off of older GNU/Linux distributions: security updates. Even in a slow computing initiative, outside invention will continue. Take ASLR, DEP, and other memory corruption mitigations. The architects of the legacy, fixed-address systems didn't expect the large amount of vulnerability due to buffer overflows in programs that handle external input. The authors of these programs failed to write tests that exercised some edge cases of malformed input. While long/malformed input unit tests might seem germane today, they weren't then. Custom software initiatives make sense for people who have a high aptitude and the time to undertake them. This use case doesn't fit the vast majority of people who use computers. While Microsoft certainly deserved the $10k judgement against them, software authors have the duty to help mitigate past imperfections, errors, and lack of foresight in their software. Authors of free and proprietary software share this responsibility.
- arximboldi 10y ago
  > Whether the OS is proprietary isn't the important facet of this issue. The OS being proprietary is an important issue. With libre software, lightweight forks that still work in old hardware can be maintained. Also, the software stack can be customized. Note that it's not security patches what makes software slow, but the zillions of layers of indexers, UI frameworks written in three layers of dynamic languages, etc that are included in a desktop environment. A modern GNU/Linux distribution function decently on old hardware as soon as you swap the desktop environment. With either you upgrade to a 20GB OS with a desktop environment that requrires 2 gigs of ram and so on, or you are stuck with an unsupported Windows XP. > Custom software initiatives make sense for people who have a high aptitude and the time to undertake them. This use case doesn't fit the vast majority of people who use computers. The average american watches 4 hours of TV a day [1] and they spends more time on Facebook than taking care of their pets [2] and takes weeks of training in order to get a driving license. I think the average person has the time to spend one or two days, when they upgrade their computer, pairing with a technician to get to understand the software they have and how it works and how to protect themselves. It's a matter of priorities. Sadly, for a lot of the software industry, an empowered userbase is not in their best economic interest. [1] https://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html https://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html [2] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-23/americans-now-spend-more-time-on-facebook-than-they-do-on-their-pets http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-23/americans-...
  - arximboldi 10y ago
    My friend sent me the link to the slow computing/technology sobereignty project: http://tianguis.cordoba.cc/que-hacemos/soberania-tecnologica/ http://tianguis.cordoba.cc/que-hacemos/soberania-tecnologica...
freehunter 10y ago
Upgrading software isn't (or shouldn't be) planned obsolescence. There's nothing inherent about software that means throwing away hardware. The only reason a Windows 7 machine wouldn't be able to run Windows 10 is if the hardware maker chose to not update their drivers, and at some point you have to stop blaming Microsoft for that. There is no such thing as planned obsolescence when it comes to software. "Throwing away" software creates no pollution and Windows 10 runs on basically anything Windows 7 ran on. >There is no valid excuse for Microsoft here. There is no valid blame for Microsoft here. Windows 10 will run just fine on 10 year old hardware, as long as the device drivers are compatible.
- PeterisP 10y ago
  How about 100% everything instead of "basically anything", without serious "if's" like "as long as drivers are compatible" ? If a machine is running, say, windows xp, and it does in a manner that satisfies the owner's need, then it should be able to keep running forever in the same manner, provided that hardware lasts and/or is replaced with adequate spares, not necessarily anything newer. It's ok if that computer becomes incompatible with newer software because of that. It's ok if that computer becomes incompatible with newer outside/network services because of that. It's not ok if that computer stops being able to execute exactly the same process that it could do 10 years ago.
  - tracker1 10y ago
    Because Microsoft didn't write the drivers for 100% of hardware... and tbh, if a company wants they can pay Microsoft to write those initial drivers, and provided the hardware for testing, iirc, they tend to maintain those drivers between versions. There are plenty of drivers that are written by MS, it's pretty common with Printers iirc, and works pretty damned well. Because foo pro-audio, or bar cnc-board didn't want to update their drivers, or for that matter, more often than not, had a weird installer that simply didn't follow proper practices, doesn't work in the new version of Windows isn't MS' fault.
    - gpvos 10y ago
blakeyrat 10y ago
If the machine is on the Internet, it needs security updates. Let's take that as an inviolate law of nature: If the machine is on the Internet, it needs security updates This isn't a proprietary vs. open source thing, this is a "level of effort" thing. Microsoft right now, if they discover a security bug, has to create a patch for: * Windows XP SP2 (thanks to all those "extended support" buyers; the US Navy has purchased support through June 8, 2017, they are not the only ones) * Windows Vista (yup; also "extended support" for another year) * Windows 7 * Windows 8 * Windows 8.1 * Windows 10 Why does that matter? * It requires (up to) 6 times the development time to develop a fix for the bug * It requires 6 times the QA time * It makes Microsoft far less responsive to bug reports because of the time required to come up with a fix * It makes Microsoft set the bar higher on what bugs are "fixable" because of the cost of coming up with a fix It makes life difficult for everybody, and it wastes a ton of time Microsoft could instead be spending making their product better instead of constantly digging-around in 17-year-old code. Let's say you're Ubuntu, you're all open source-y and have that warm fuzzy feeling. You want people to use their 10 year old OS installs, no problem. Let's be generous and only include the long-term support versions, because I want to save on typing: * Dapper Drake * Hardy Heron * Lucid Lynx * Precise Pangolin * Trusty Tahr * Xenial Xerus That's also six versions you have to update every time a security fix comes in. (Potentially) 6 times the code to create the fix, definitely 6 times the QA time, etc. All the same problems Microsoft has, but this time in your open source dreamland. That's a huge, huge, waste of effort that could go towards actually making the OS better.
- fapjacks 10y ago
  You really don't understand Linux.

"Holding back the industry" No! I think we, the software industry, are very irresponsible when it comes to __planned obsolescence__ [1]. Computers from 10 ye

linkregister 10y ago

Whether the OS is proprietary isn't the important facet of this issue. The case for encouraging users to move off of Windows XP is the same as the case for encouraging users to move off of older GNU/Linux distributions: security updates. Even in a slow computing initiative, outside invention will continue. Take ASLR, DEP, and other memory corruption mitigations. The architects of the legacy, fixed-address systems didn't expect the large amount of vulnerability due to buffer overflows in programs that handle external input. The authors of these programs failed to write tests that exercised some edge cases of malformed input. While long/malformed input unit tests might seem germane today, they weren't then. Custom software initiatives make sense for people who have a high aptitude and the time to undertake them. This use case doesn't fit the vast majority of people who use computers. While Microsoft certainly deserved the $10k judgement against them, software authors have the duty to help mitigate past imperfections, errors, and lack of foresight in their software. Authors of free and proprietary software share this responsibility.

arximboldi 10y ago
> Whether the OS is proprietary isn't the important facet of this issue. The OS being proprietary is an important issue. With libre software, lightweight forks that still work in old hardware can be maintained. Also, the software stack can be customized. Note that it's not security patches what makes software slow, but the zillions of layers of indexers, UI frameworks written in three layers of dynamic languages, etc that are included in a desktop environment. A modern GNU/Linux distribution function decently on old hardware as soon as you swap the desktop environment. With either you upgrade to a 20GB OS with a desktop environment that requrires 2 gigs of ram and so on, or you are stuck with an unsupported Windows XP. > Custom software initiatives make sense for people who have a high aptitude and the time to undertake them. This use case doesn't fit the vast majority of people who use computers. The average american watches 4 hours of TV a day [1] and they spends more time on Facebook than taking care of their pets [2] and takes weeks of training in order to get a driving license. I think the average person has the time to spend one or two days, when they upgrade their computer, pairing with a technician to get to understand the software they have and how it works and how to protect themselves. It's a matter of priorities. Sadly, for a lot of the software industry, an empowered userbase is not in their best economic interest. [1] https://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html https://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html [2] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-23/americans-now-spend-more-time-on-facebook-than-they-do-on-their-pets http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-23/americans-...
- arximboldi 10y ago
  My friend sent me the link to the slow computing/technology sobereignty project: http://tianguis.cordoba.cc/que-hacemos/soberania-tecnologica/ http://tianguis.cordoba.cc/que-hacemos/soberania-tecnologica...

freehunter 10y ago

Upgrading software isn't (or shouldn't be) planned obsolescence. There's nothing inherent about software that means throwing away hardware. The only reason a Windows 7 machine wouldn't be able to run Windows 10 is if the hardware maker chose to not update their drivers, and at some point you have to stop blaming Microsoft for that. There is no such thing as planned obsolescence when it comes to software. "Throwing away" software creates no pollution and Windows 10 runs on basically anything Windows 7 ran on. >There is no valid excuse for Microsoft here. There is no valid blame for Microsoft here. Windows 10 will run just fine on 10 year old hardware, as long as the device drivers are compatible.

PeterisP 10y ago
How about 100% everything instead of "basically anything", without serious "if's" like "as long as drivers are compatible" ? If a machine is running, say, windows xp, and it does in a manner that satisfies the owner's need, then it should be able to keep running forever in the same manner, provided that hardware lasts and/or is replaced with adequate spares, not necessarily anything newer. It's ok if that computer becomes incompatible with newer software because of that. It's ok if that computer becomes incompatible with newer outside/network services because of that. It's not ok if that computer stops being able to execute exactly the same process that it could do 10 years ago.
- tracker1 10y ago
  Because Microsoft didn't write the drivers for 100% of hardware... and tbh, if a company wants they can pay Microsoft to write those initial drivers, and provided the hardware for testing, iirc, they tend to maintain those drivers between versions. There are plenty of drivers that are written by MS, it's pretty common with Printers iirc, and works pretty damned well. Because foo pro-audio, or bar cnc-board didn't want to update their drivers, or for that matter, more often than not, had a weird installer that simply didn't follow proper practices, doesn't work in the new version of Windows isn't MS' fault.
  - gpvos 10y ago

blakeyrat 10y ago

If the machine is on the Internet, it needs security updates. Let's take that as an inviolate law of nature: If the machine is on the Internet, it needs security updates This isn't a proprietary vs. open source thing, this is a "level of effort" thing. Microsoft right now, if they discover a security bug, has to create a patch for: * Windows XP SP2 (thanks to all those "extended support" buyers; the US Navy has purchased support through June 8, 2017, they are not the only ones) * Windows Vista (yup; also "extended support" for another year) * Windows 7 * Windows 8 * Windows 8.1 * Windows 10 Why does that matter? * It requires (up to) 6 times the development time to develop a fix for the bug * It requires 6 times the QA time * It makes Microsoft far less responsive to bug reports because of the time required to come up with a fix * It makes Microsoft set the bar higher on what bugs are "fixable" because of the cost of coming up with a fix It makes life difficult for everybody, and it wastes a ton of time Microsoft could instead be spending making their product better instead of constantly digging-around in 17-year-old code. Let's say you're Ubuntu, you're all open source-y and have that warm fuzzy feeling. You want people to use their 10 year old OS installs, no problem. Let's be generous and only include the long-term support versions, because I want to save on typing: * Dapper Drake * Hardy Heron * Lucid Lynx * Precise Pangolin * Trusty Tahr * Xenial Xerus That's also six versions you have to update every time a security fix comes in. (Potentially) 6 times the code to create the fix, definitely 6 times the QA time, etc. All the same problems Microsoft has, but this time in your open source dreamland. That's a huge, huge, waste of effort that could go towards actually making the OS better.

fapjacks 10y ago
You really don't understand Linux.