3 ms·

If you want to stay on a prior product version, I see no reason why you should be prevented. But, to expect continued support and development for it? How much

If you want to stay on a prior product version, I see no reason why you should be prevented. But, to expect continued support and development for it? How much are you offering to pay for that? Is it a number that grows faster than the adoption rate of the new product shrinks the userbase supporting continued development of the old?

Silhouette 9y ago
Ongoing support for software-based products is an area where I don't think we have good answers yet. On the one hand, it's unreasonable to expect indefinite support and continued development of a product when it's not generating additional revenue to pay for those activities. On the other hand, when it comes to security issues, usually we're not talking about continued development so much as fixing defects in the original product. If you bought a car or a refrigerator and it was found within a reasonable period after the sale that the car would break down suddenly under certain conditions or the fridge wouldn't keep food inside chilled properly, you would expect the manufacturer or vendor to make the product good at their own expense or to compensate you in one way or another; indeed, at least for consumer products, the law in many places would require them to do so. Software companies have been given a bye on this one for a long time, but partly because we've also had a culture where they fixed their mistakes voluntarily. If they're no longer willing to participate in that informal arrangement, maybe it's time for statutory rules about minimum support levels and standardised, transparent disclosure of how long something will or won't be supported for, how updates will be handled, data privacy and portability including after the end of the minimum support period, and so on.
e1ven 9y ago
If the machine is properly firewalled off, and only accessing the internet using apps which are up-to-date, I think the realistic risk is pretty minimal.
gokvokbok 9y ago
I'd argue that Bill Gates and Microsoft's aggressive, ruthless, greedy and illegal behaviour throughout the 90's shifted them into a position of near-monopoly in terms of desktop operating systems and office products e.g. as a developer, I have no choice but to install it due to government clients requiring Office, .NET code etc. So given that, and given the profit they generate through that, I think they should support older systems for as long as people are forced to use them.

Silhouette 9y ago

Ongoing support for software-based products is an area where I don't think we have good answers yet. On the one hand, it's unreasonable to expect indefinite support and continued development of a product when it's not generating additional revenue to pay for those activities. On the other hand, when it comes to security issues, usually we're not talking about continued development so much as fixing defects in the original product. If you bought a car or a refrigerator and it was found within a reasonable period after the sale that the car would break down suddenly under certain conditions or the fridge wouldn't keep food inside chilled properly, you would expect the manufacturer or vendor to make the product good at their own expense or to compensate you in one way or another; indeed, at least for consumer products, the law in many places would require them to do so. Software companies have been given a bye on this one for a long time, but partly because we've also had a culture where they fixed their mistakes voluntarily. If they're no longer willing to participate in that informal arrangement, maybe it's time for statutory rules about minimum support levels and standardised, transparent disclosure of how long something will or won't be supported for, how updates will be handled, data privacy and portability including after the end of the minimum support period, and so on.

e1ven 9y ago

If the machine is properly firewalled off, and only accessing the internet using apps which are up-to-date, I think the realistic risk is pretty minimal.

gokvokbok 9y ago

I'd argue that Bill Gates and Microsoft's aggressive, ruthless, greedy and illegal behaviour throughout the 90's shifted them into a position of near-monopoly in terms of desktop operating systems and office products e.g. as a developer, I have no choice but to install it due to government clients requiring Office, .NET code etc. So given that, and given the profit they generate through that, I think they should support older systems for as long as people are forced to use them.