3 ms·

It’s actually really wild that OS vendors apparently sell software that is so defective that it is assumed unsafe without ongoing updates, and then use the thre

It’s actually really wild that OS vendors apparently sell software that is so defective that it is assumed unsafe without ongoing updates, and then use the threat of not providing updates to spur adoption of their subsequent products. In a more reasonable world they’d owe their customers a recall.

dsp_person 1y ago
would you be happy running a few years old linux kernel missing security patches?
- ssl-3 1y ago
  Good point. As a response to the kernel's various SNAFUs, I've gone ahead and refunded to myself all of the money I've spent on Linux kernels over the past several decades -- and updated my install to the new version for free.
- bee_rider 1y ago
  Not really, but 1) there’s no implied warranty of merchantability with the hobbyist system 2) the “business model” (such as it is) of open source doesn’t push distros to hide security updates behind a pathway 3) generally Linux is usually getting better so I want to update anyway
- const_cast 1y ago
  I mean... people do it with Android phones all the time.
- josephcsible 1y ago
  The point is that to get further security updates, you have to spend money to run the new major version of Windows. You can run the most up-to-date Linux for free on a computer from 1989.
  - vel0city 1y ago
    > You can run the most up-to-date Linux for free on a computer from 1989 Untrue. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/05/linux-to-end-support-for-1989s-hottest-chip-the-486-with-next-release/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/05/linux-to-end-support... I tend to play around with old machines (late 80s, early 90s mostly) and getting any kind of modern-ish distro working on old machines, even distros really cut down, can be quite challenging.
    - josephcsible 1y ago
      That patch hasn't been merged yet, so it is in fact still true.
- prmoustache 1y ago
  One might ask why we need security patches in the first place and why can't we write secure software from the beginning. Aren't we just trying to do to much and releasing defective software. Why is it accepted?

dsp_person 1y ago

would you be happy running a few years old linux kernel missing security patches?

ssl-3 1y ago
Good point. As a response to the kernel's various SNAFUs, I've gone ahead and refunded to myself all of the money I've spent on Linux kernels over the past several decades -- and updated my install to the new version for free.
bee_rider 1y ago
Not really, but 1) there’s no implied warranty of merchantability with the hobbyist system 2) the “business model” (such as it is) of open source doesn’t push distros to hide security updates behind a pathway 3) generally Linux is usually getting better so I want to update anyway
const_cast 1y ago
I mean... people do it with Android phones all the time.
josephcsible 1y ago
The point is that to get further security updates, you have to spend money to run the new major version of Windows. You can run the most up-to-date Linux for free on a computer from 1989.
- vel0city 1y ago
  > You can run the most up-to-date Linux for free on a computer from 1989 Untrue. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/05/linux-to-end-support-for-1989s-hottest-chip-the-486-with-next-release/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/05/linux-to-end-support... I tend to play around with old machines (late 80s, early 90s mostly) and getting any kind of modern-ish distro working on old machines, even distros really cut down, can be quite challenging.
  - josephcsible 1y ago
    That patch hasn't been merged yet, so it is in fact still true.
prmoustache 1y ago
One might ask why we need security patches in the first place and why can't we write secure software from the beginning. Aren't we just trying to do to much and releasing defective software. Why is it accepted?