this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2025
531 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

75233 readers
3416 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?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zink@programming.dev 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

This seems backwards. Let's just assume we're always going to be willingly beholden to tech giants, and so we're going to pass a law to make our masters treat us well.

Maybe instead campaign for a law that says all publicly funded computer resources must be reliably usable for 15 years. So you either go FOSS and save money too, or you get guarantees in writing before you hand over your hand over money to the people who won't even let you see what their code is doing on your hardware.

[–] spicehoarder@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

You can already patch windows as much as you want.

[–] buttnugget@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

You can? How do you do that?

[–] HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

By replacing it with something better.

[–] buttnugget@lemmy.world 2 points 56 minutes ago

Yeah, I’ll just call up the CTO and ask for a new deployment of 300,000 VMs lmfao

[–] Ironfist79@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

People have had plenty of time to upgrade. 15 years is an incredibly long time to be supporting an OS. Even RHEL doesn't do that.

[–] ratten@lemmings.world 7 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I have no sympathy for anyone using microsoft products.

They made their bed, now they get to sleep in it.

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I didnt my finance and IT team did.

If you ever want to create a google fan, make them use M365

[–] spicehoarder@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 hours ago

seems you were already a Google fan, they are a unique breed of horrible.

[–] merdaverse@lemmy.world 11 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (3 children)

Microsoft's plan to end Windows 10 support next month — which may make an estimated 400 million PCs obsolete

I don't get this. Can't those PCs update to the new version? Yes, I am very aware that win11 is a shit show and win10 was better.

But Ubuntu also has a similar support policy for updates:

Ubuntu LTS versions get five years of updates, while non-LTS only gets nine months.

Would all the Linux versions out there be subjected the same 15 years of updates??

[–] Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 32 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

No, Windows 11 added extra, unneeded hardware requirements.

Obsolete in this case actually means obsolete. Windows 11 literally blocks the update because you do not meet requirements, such as not having a TPM.

Technically, there are ways to bypass this, but not for a casual user (and it probably breaks some ToS)

[–] Smith6612@lemmy.world 6 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Yep, exactly this. You can bypass the TPM and Processor requirements, but at some point it will come back to bite someone in the butt.

Microsoft with the 24H2 update broke Windows 11 for older systems (like Core2Duo, which are already ancient) due to a lack of required processor instructions. I've seen systems running under QEMU, and also on newer systems like the AMD Ryzen Zen1 platform experience "Unsupported Processor" BSODs preventing the system from booting.

Even outside of that, Microsoft doesn't deploy the yearly feature roll-ups to systems with unsupported hardware, even if Windows 11 is already installed. I've seen many unsupported systems end up stuck 1-2 builds behind, and they never see the update. They have to be manually updated using the same mechanisms that got Windows 11 installed in the first place.

Microsoft I believe, expects Windows 11 to be running on a minimum set of hardware, and that's all they are qualifying it for. So older systems are going to eat it at some point if they are used in production.

The TPM checks are for security but, certainly not required if someone is willing to drop system security for some reason.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

TPM is more about securing data from PC owners rather than for them. Since it's there anyways, it is used to support bitlocker, but the reason they are pushing it so much is because it might (depending on whether it actually is secure) be able to allow content providers to allow users to view their content without needing to give them access to copy or edit it.

And there isn't any guarantee that the uses that do benefit the user's security don't have some backdoor for approved crackers to get in. Like doesn't the MS account store a copy of the recovery key for bitlocker? Which is nice for when the user needs it, but also comes in handy if MS wants to grant access to anyone else.

[–] AstralPath@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Apparently there's a way to install Win11 and bypass all these requirements.

https://www.tomshardware.com/how-to/bypass-windows-11-tpm-requirement

https://youtu.be/tx5TaozMXMQ

[–] AstralPath@lemmy.ca 12 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

You don't typically pay to run Linux distros. They're open-source. I can't imagine they'd be subject to this.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 8 hours ago

if anyone pays though they would need to keep a long-long-term-support.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Verqix@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

Correct, the "obsolete" PCs can't update to Windows 11. The Windows 11 update forces certain hardware support that a lot of devices don't have. The security this hardware provides is mainly in someone physically removing data from your PC. As such it's very business oriented but affects all versions of Windows 11.

[–] barryamelton@lemmy.world 8 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

It's not business oriented, it provides a unique ID attached to the machine, cryptographically proven.

Next step is to use that unique ID to identify you on the internet and digital life. Ending all privacy.

You think this is far fetched? Kernel-level anti-cheat for games already does this and bans the machine from playing that game ever again.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 7 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

I think Microsoft should be punished with forcing to release the Windows kernel source code.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Matriks404@lemmy.world 10 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

No, OS makers should just not make their OS bloated with useless shit, stealing your data and have arbitrary system requirements. I think 15 years of OS updates is excessive unless we're talking about servers or very specific workflows. IMO 5-10 years is enough.

That said, for some operating systems it doesn't even make sense to support for THAT long, because how they are designed (A lot of Linux distros for example). It turns out, if you don't break users' workflow, they don't mind to upgrade.

[–] some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

I agree with most of that, but there are loads of embedded systems still running the equivalent of Windows XP and they're chugging along just fine. That OS still receives updates and ending that would break a lot of backend stuff. Mostly banking.

Boeing just started making planes which don't rely on floppy disks for updates. That will continue on the older part of the fleet until it's no longer feasible to procure the disks or the planes are no longer airworthy. I mean, why not? If you only need to store a few mbs for something critical, it's not a bad choice of medium.

If a system is secure, reliable and works for decades without complaint, there's no need to fix that.

load more comments
view more: next ›