this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2025
500 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

75227 readers
3469 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 33 points 20 hours ago (5 children)

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

[–] ratten@lemmings.world 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

These multi-billion dollar corporations have more than enough resources to provide updates for 15 years.

There's nothing insane about it, unless you've been conditioned to live vicariously through business owners.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Pretty sure postmarketOS isn't made by a multi-billion dollar corporation. Such a requirement would mean ONLY multi-billion dollar corporations can release an operating system. You do not want to give them that power.

[–] ratten@lemmings.world 3 points 5 hours ago

If it's free software, then anyone can implement the fixes themselves.

Doing so with proprietary software would be illegal.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 hours ago

There are companies still running XP.

[–] iesha_256@lemmy.ml 13 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 7 points 12 hours ago

Ahh, so the win11 arbitrary hardware requirements bullshit

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 2 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 4 points 9 hours ago

That’s unfortunate, but still leaves you 20 years worth of devices if they drop 32-bit.

[–] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 2 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

They didn't say you could not do version upgrade...

[–] whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works 7 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

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 5 points 19 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.