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
[–] 38 points 11 months ago (5 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 11 months 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    I don't know. just the other day somebody on lemmy was asking about installing a 32bit 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments