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

Technology

75233 readers
3034 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
[–] freeman@feddit.org 10 points 1 day ago (3 children)

What would that mean for Linux distros? It seems like it could be a law that cuts off the competition. Like amazon who is very selectively for better working conditions when the know that no competitior can fulfull them.

[–] ieatpwns@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Would Linux even count since it’s foss?

[–] thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 minutes ago

If implemented this should only apply to paid OS's or ones where a licence comes with the hardware

No license is needed for Linux

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

I think it does in some cases, like if you buy a System 76 computer with PopOS, or you buy a server with Red Hat.
However if you install a Linux OS yourself, that is available free of charge, there isn't any money to claim back, and it would be illogical if there should be demands on updates.

I think logically there needs to be money involved, so if you download PopOS you're on your own, but if you bought a computer with PopOS installed it is part of a package.

I'm not a lawyer, but from my experience this is how things typically work.

Edit PS:
If it's FOSS or FLOSS there also technically isn't any owner, so there is no legal person to make a claim against.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

I think it would need to be a commercial product like Red Hat or preinstalled OS by the company that sell the computer.
With a FOSS distribution that is made freely available without charge, that people download and install themselves, people are probably themselves responsible for their choice of OS.

[–] tabular@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Microsoft is so wealthy they could do that, and would even support such legislation if it could hinder their competitors such as smaller Linux distributions.