Should OS makers, like Microsoft, be legally required to provide 15 years of security updates?

  • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    8 hours ago

    That sounds like an insane duration, even LTS distros are not usually anything like 15 years

    • iesha_256@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 hours ago

      this isn’t about the age of the OS, it’s the age of the device. I can install linux on a device from 20 years ago if not more.

      • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        I don’t know. just the other day somebody on lemmy was asking about installing a 32bit linux distro on an old netbook and the majority of comments were discussing whether there was any practical reason for distros to continue 32-bit support.

    • whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 hours ago

      yeah but you don’t pay 150euros for it + all the ads and stuffs

      but yeah, I don’t see the point of this, it’s clearly aimed at Microsoft, and at this point alternative solutions exist

      • danhab99@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I almost feel like the compromise we will eventually land on is that if an OS maker like Microsoft wants to continue advertising on your OS they have to take some liability for its security.