3 ms·

"We're going to write security updates for this OS but we won't give them to you" is such psychopathic behavior.

zamadatix 4y ago
The extended update programs are/were only available for corporate users as it's a pay-to-subsidize-availability program that costs more per year than the original OS license. While you may disagree if that's good or not jumping straight to labeling it psychopathic behavior seems more like an argument which came from a conclusion than the other way around.
skissane 4y ago
Writing security updates costs money-and as the software gets older, the cost generally goes up too. Is it wrong for them to decide, after a reasonable period, to stop spending that money on outdated versions? What happens then when a small subset of customers says “we need those updates so much, we’ll pay extra for them?” Is it wrong to take their money and spend it on writing the updates they request, with a reasonable margin on top? But once you are selling updates to that small subset of customers, if you start giving the very same updates away for free to everyone else, those customers are going to ask for their money back. I don’t see any “psychopathy” here, just rational business decisions. This doesn’t just happen for operating systems. Many vendors of on-promise proprietary software do the same-databases, middleware, ERP suites, etc-most of them have a special program for customers who want to stay on really old versions, in which they pay extra $$$ for updates compared to customers willing to move to a more current one. If you accept proprietary software as ethical, I can’t see how this practice can reasonably be accused of being unethical.
- wkat4242 4y ago
  The problem with the newer options is that they are not paid strictly with money anymore. Windows 10/11 use a ton of telemetry you can't turn off. I use them anyway but only for gaming to limit my exposure. > Many vendors of on-promise proprietary software do the same-databases, middleware, ERP suites, etc-most of them have a special program for customers who want to stay on really old versions You can't really compare enterprise class software with something that is sold directly to consumers.
  - skissane 4y ago
    > The problem with the newer options is that they are not paid strictly with money anymore. Windows 10/11 use a ton of telemetry you can't turn off. Enterprise, Server and Education licenses support "Diagnostic Data Off" telemetry level. I think they'll sell Server to anyone, and even though Enterprise is only sold to "businesses", it doesn't cost much to set up a corporation, and now you are a business customer. Not saying I'm a fan of Microsoft's telemetry policies–but it is not like people are forced to buy Windows, especially nowadays, there are other options: macOS, Linux, Chromebooks. Don't have to worry about telemetry on my Linux box, and Apple is a much more privacy-friendly company than Microsoft. If people don't like Microsoft's policies, they can vote with their feet. > You can't really compare enterprise class software with something that is sold directly to consumers. Microsoft no longer supports Windows 7 for consumers, only for certain enterprise use cases. So in the context in which it is still supported, it is enterprise class software, and other enterprise class software is a valid comparison.
    - wkat4242 4y ago
      > Apple is a much more privacy-friendly company than Microsoft. I'm not in agreement here. Apple likes to paint themselves as more privacy-friendly, yes. Whether they actually are is another story. They have a lot better PR that prevents them from doing stupid skullduggery like unwanted news and "special offers" and "payment plans" in edge. But a Mac calls home a lot even when you are turning telemetry "off". I'll try the enterprise version (I have MDSN) but last time I checked it I am pretty sure it gave the same options.
- Nullabillity 4y ago
  > I don’t see any “psychopathy” here, just rational business decisions. That's just a prettier word for the same thing. And bringing up Oracle as your reference for ethical behaviour is certainly... a take that doesn't really say what you think it says.
  - skissane 4y ago
    I used to work for Oracle. I'm still friends with people who I worked with at Oracle. Many of my current colleagues used to work for Oracle. My current manager, and his manager too, used to work for Oracle. Did we always agree with the decisions of Oracle executive management? Nope. Of course, so long as you work there, you can't say that publicly. But, even though there's quite a few things that Oracle did while I was there that I strongly disagreed with – I can't see the problem with charging extra for supporting really old versions. It is just common sense, and it is part of the package the customer signed up to at the start – the collateral given to the customer as part of every deal explained it. Many other vendors do it too. A consumer might legitimately claim they didn't understand what they'd signed up to, but that's not believable when a billion dollar company signs a million dollar deal. Oracle has over 100,000 employees today. I have no idea how many ex-employees there are – I've met so many over the years, we are everywhere – but I guess it must be well over 1 million by now.
    - Nullabillity 4y ago
      You are deliberately putting in extra effort to make your own product less secure. Often with consequences that will primarily be felt by people far down the impact chain, who probably didn't even know that the choice was being made.
bee_rider 4y ago
I think a lot of companies agree with you more or less — well, companies don’t have personalities or psychologies, so psychopathy is not really possible. But charging for security updates is too much of a reputation risk. Of course because they are profit driven entities and they can’t charge for security patches, they just stop writing them.
- somenameforme 4y ago
  Companies are not unaccountable entities. They're headed by people who make and carry out these decisions. And withholding security updates as a means of planned obsolescence is absolutely a consciously directed strategy. In many ways companies act as too much of a shield for bad behavior. When a "company" does something awful, it's not the company - but the executive leadership doing that.
amatecha 4y ago
A lot about modern proprietary OSes is psychopathic lol
password4321 4y ago
0patch is free for personal use, going back to Windows 7. https://0patch.com/pricing.html https://0patch.com/pricing.html
teddyh 4y ago
s/security updates for this OS/software/

The extended update programs are/were only available for corporate users as it's a pay-to-subsidize-availability program that costs more per year than the original OS license. While you may disagree if that's good or not jumping straight to labeling it psychopathic behavior seems more like an argument which came from a conclusion than the other way around.

skissane 4y ago

Writing security updates costs money-and as the software gets older, the cost generally goes up too. Is it wrong for them to decide, after a reasonable period, to stop spending that money on outdated versions? What happens then when a small subset of customers says “we need those updates so much, we’ll pay extra for them?” Is it wrong to take their money and spend it on writing the updates they request, with a reasonable margin on top? But once you are selling updates to that small subset of customers, if you start giving the very same updates away for free to everyone else, those customers are going to ask for their money back. I don’t see any “psychopathy” here, just rational business decisions. This doesn’t just happen for operating systems. Many vendors of on-promise proprietary software do the same-databases, middleware, ERP suites, etc-most of them have a special program for customers who want to stay on really old versions, in which they pay extra $$$ for updates compared to customers willing to move to a more current one. If you accept proprietary software as ethical, I can’t see how this practice can reasonably be accused of being unethical.

wkat4242 4y ago
The problem with the newer options is that they are not paid strictly with money anymore. Windows 10/11 use a ton of telemetry you can't turn off. I use them anyway but only for gaming to limit my exposure. > Many vendors of on-promise proprietary software do the same-databases, middleware, ERP suites, etc-most of them have a special program for customers who want to stay on really old versions You can't really compare enterprise class software with something that is sold directly to consumers.
- skissane 4y ago
  > The problem with the newer options is that they are not paid strictly with money anymore. Windows 10/11 use a ton of telemetry you can't turn off. Enterprise, Server and Education licenses support "Diagnostic Data Off" telemetry level. I think they'll sell Server to anyone, and even though Enterprise is only sold to "businesses", it doesn't cost much to set up a corporation, and now you are a business customer. Not saying I'm a fan of Microsoft's telemetry policies–but it is not like people are forced to buy Windows, especially nowadays, there are other options: macOS, Linux, Chromebooks. Don't have to worry about telemetry on my Linux box, and Apple is a much more privacy-friendly company than Microsoft. If people don't like Microsoft's policies, they can vote with their feet. > You can't really compare enterprise class software with something that is sold directly to consumers. Microsoft no longer supports Windows 7 for consumers, only for certain enterprise use cases. So in the context in which it is still supported, it is enterprise class software, and other enterprise class software is a valid comparison.
  - wkat4242 4y ago
    > Apple is a much more privacy-friendly company than Microsoft. I'm not in agreement here. Apple likes to paint themselves as more privacy-friendly, yes. Whether they actually are is another story. They have a lot better PR that prevents them from doing stupid skullduggery like unwanted news and "special offers" and "payment plans" in edge. But a Mac calls home a lot even when you are turning telemetry "off". I'll try the enterprise version (I have MDSN) but last time I checked it I am pretty sure it gave the same options.
Nullabillity 4y ago
> I don’t see any “psychopathy” here, just rational business decisions. That's just a prettier word for the same thing. And bringing up Oracle as your reference for ethical behaviour is certainly... a take that doesn't really say what you think it says.
- skissane 4y ago
  I used to work for Oracle. I'm still friends with people who I worked with at Oracle. Many of my current colleagues used to work for Oracle. My current manager, and his manager too, used to work for Oracle. Did we always agree with the decisions of Oracle executive management? Nope. Of course, so long as you work there, you can't say that publicly. But, even though there's quite a few things that Oracle did while I was there that I strongly disagreed with – I can't see the problem with charging extra for supporting really old versions. It is just common sense, and it is part of the package the customer signed up to at the start – the collateral given to the customer as part of every deal explained it. Many other vendors do it too. A consumer might legitimately claim they didn't understand what they'd signed up to, but that's not believable when a billion dollar company signs a million dollar deal. Oracle has over 100,000 employees today. I have no idea how many ex-employees there are – I've met so many over the years, we are everywhere – but I guess it must be well over 1 million by now.
  - Nullabillity 4y ago
    You are deliberately putting in extra effort to make your own product less secure. Often with consequences that will primarily be felt by people far down the impact chain, who probably didn't even know that the choice was being made.

bee_rider 4y ago

I think a lot of companies agree with you more or less — well, companies don’t have personalities or psychologies, so psychopathy is not really possible. But charging for security updates is too much of a reputation risk. Of course because they are profit driven entities and they can’t charge for security patches, they just stop writing them.

somenameforme 4y ago
Companies are not unaccountable entities. They're headed by people who make and carry out these decisions. And withholding security updates as a means of planned obsolescence is absolutely a consciously directed strategy. In many ways companies act as too much of a shield for bad behavior. When a "company" does something awful, it's not the company - but the executive leadership doing that.

amatecha 4y ago

A lot about modern proprietary OSes is psychopathic lol

password4321 4y ago

0patch is free for personal use, going back to Windows 7. https://0patch.com/pricing.html https://0patch.com/pricing.html

teddyh 4y ago

s/security updates for this OS/software/