4 ms·

They did provide flexible updates, for like ~10 (ish) years. They're done doing that now and everyone should be well aware already.

shmerl 13y ago
With Linux no one can pull the plug. Here, they are at MS's mercy. So they learned their mistake the hard way. Naturally, even supported versions of Linux like RedHat's and etc. have an EOL date support wise. But in the worst case if some company is stubborn enough to stay on the old version for whatever reason (which might be valid for them), they can take the code and support it themselves. With Windows it's not possible. So open systems have a clear advantage here.
- orf 13y ago
  Great, let's support companies who like to run financial software on ancient, insecure and decrepit platforms who don't want to invest in pulling their software into the 21st century. Microsoft has offered an embedded version of Windows since 7, and say what you will about Windows but it's backwards compatibility is second to none. If they can't or won't move to a more modern, secure OS (after 10+ years) then I would argue that they shouldn't be trusted to make ATM's
  - shmerl 13y ago
    While their reason was wrong (not taking care of upgrading in time), their outcome was right - they consider ditching Microsfot ;)
    - orf 13y ago
      Great, now they can stick their ATM's on a 2.6.x kernel and not touch it for another 10 years. Everybody wins right?
      - shmerl 13y ago
        In general yes, since it won't make it any less secure than it was already. But it will reduce MS grip on the market. Those who really cared about security didn't even use MS to begin with anyway. Having a black box closed source system with who knows what kind of backdoors as an ATM OS? Sounds bizarre of you think of it.
        kevincrane 13y ago
        > Those who really cared about security didn't even use MS to begin with anyway. I don't know enough about this field to comment definitively, but I have to imagine that if one industry cares about security very, very deeply, it's the one that makes machines that give away money when you have a card with a magnetized strip and you push the right buttons. I'm willing to bet that the Windows XP that lives inside an ATM is not the same one that you buy from New Egg to play Half-Life.

shmerl 13y ago

With Linux no one can pull the plug. Here, they are at MS's mercy. So they learned their mistake the hard way. Naturally, even supported versions of Linux like RedHat's and etc. have an EOL date support wise. But in the worst case if some company is stubborn enough to stay on the old version for whatever reason (which might be valid for them), they can take the code and support it themselves. With Windows it's not possible. So open systems have a clear advantage here.

orf 13y ago
Great, let's support companies who like to run financial software on ancient, insecure and decrepit platforms who don't want to invest in pulling their software into the 21st century. Microsoft has offered an embedded version of Windows since 7, and say what you will about Windows but it's backwards compatibility is second to none. If they can't or won't move to a more modern, secure OS (after 10+ years) then I would argue that they shouldn't be trusted to make ATM's
- shmerl 13y ago
  While their reason was wrong (not taking care of upgrading in time), their outcome was right - they consider ditching Microsfot ;)
  - orf 13y ago
    Great, now they can stick their ATM's on a 2.6.x kernel and not touch it for another 10 years. Everybody wins right?
    - shmerl 13y ago
      In general yes, since it won't make it any less secure than it was already. But it will reduce MS grip on the market. Those who really cared about security didn't even use MS to begin with anyway. Having a black box closed source system with who knows what kind of backdoors as an ATM OS? Sounds bizarre of you think of it.
      - kevincrane 13y ago
        > Those who really cared about security didn't even use MS to begin with anyway. I don't know enough about this field to comment definitively, but I have to imagine that if one industry cares about security very, very deeply, it's the one that makes machines that give away money when you have a card with a magnetized strip and you push the right buttons. I'm willing to bet that the Windows XP that lives inside an ATM is not the same one that you buy from New Egg to play Half-Life.