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

  • JustARaccoon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    14 days ago

    I think I’d prefer if there was a minimum updates guarantee that OS sellers would have to disclose, but even then I’m more in favour of other companies being able to pick up the work by making sure devices have their bootloader unlockable after they don’t get any more updates for X amount of time, rather than add burden to OS makers, because forcing people to support a project for Y amount of years would really harm indie developers releasing Linux distros and the like

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 days ago

      rather than add burden to OS makers

      It’s not a burden for the OS maker, except when the OS is the product, and in that case it’s only fair.
      With Android the phone maker adapt the OS to their phones and flavor of Android, if they can’t handle maintaining it, they can use vanilla. Google is the OS maker, and I think they can handle the burden.

    • thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 days ago

      forcing people to support a project for Y amount of years would really harm indie developers releasing Linux distros and the like

      Solution: implement as consumer protection that only applies to paid OS’s (and also ones that require a license, even if it’s “free” due to coming with the hardware)