Does this include bitlocker? Or is this an issue with third party boot loaders so bitlocker is fine but truecrypt is not?
Here some context
its an easy fix for for dualboot if you can just replace grub with mbr again, but people with disc encryption are rather screwed it seems.
But this is definitely confusing. MS explicitly offers patches for Win 7, Server 2008, Server 2003, and XP, but there's no "Vista" link visible.
If anyone should not expect security update news via popular news outlets its Window's Vista users. There are plenty of niche channels for niche product releases.
The upgrade from XP to Vista meant a lot of software stopped working, especially from a driver perspective. If you're using some niche software that "just works (tm)", why change? Especially if it costs a lot of money to upgrade or your system isn't networked. The UK tried to upgrade its XP running backbone years ago, failed - and still got billet £10+ billion.
There was the popular perception at the time that every other version of Windows was good, while the in-betweens sucked. Vista followed that expectation perfectly, as did Windows 8.
I've always read this comic as making fun of people for having unjustifiably low opinions of Vista.
As someone commented above, there's a footnote about how Vista users can use the Server 2008 patch, I was more amused that in an apparently-complete enumeration of versions in a table, they just...left it off.
- XP market share: 3.57%
- Vista market share: 0.23%
- Mac OS 10.10 market share: 0.51%
(10.10 went out of support the same year as Vista)
Google has absolutely terrible support. You can't even use their products when they discontinue them, and they discontinue them all the time. Maybe I should have used Nest for my example, which people actually paid for, put in their houses, and now can't use any more.
Last release of XP was 11 years ago. Extended support ended 5 years ago. Yet people who want to use it still can, and even still get occasional security patches. Even Vista is still usable and gets updated, as mentioned in a sibling comment.
If Google shafts a private person they might get angry and buy Apple next time, and Google loses a few hundred bucks. But if Microsoft shafts the XP machine in a hospital that runs their old MRI machine or whatever, that's a potential PR crisis and possibly a million-dollar lawsuit.
Now everyone on XP will feel safe because its still getting updates.
I do appreciate the problem of security patches, but XP is pretty rock solid as a platform so for many businesses their tool does what they need.
Patching an ancient OS is enabling the delay of updates with the excuse "Whats the point, it still works"
The entire situation is ridiculous really. So what that XP is "ancient"? For many purposes it works just fine. The only reason this situation exists is because people can't fix their own computers. The entire thing is a massive waste of resources.
And look, of course it would be better if they upgraded. But "facts on the ground" can make it hard. It's easy to comment on HN, but not everyone involved is a complete idiot. I suspect that it's probably one of those 90/10% things: 90% has already been upgraded year ago, but getting the last 10% upgraded to something newer is 90% of the effort.
The situation where I'm not able (or even legally allowed!) to patch my own computer system is pretty ridiculous. I'm not massively in to "Free Software" or the "four essential freedoms", but I do think people should have the freedom to fix software they bought ("right to repair").
I know how it works, I don't "buy" Windows, I buy a license to allow using it. I think is legal shenanigans and doesn't (or rather, shouldn't) really matter.
The entire thing is just a colossal waste of resources. Many organisations would be perfectly happy with XP, because a basic stable OS without too much fancy stuff is all they need, and XP offers that. It's not an "upgrade", it's just "replacing a working system with another working system".
It sounds like what you're saying is that a company has no "right" to determine whether they wish to distribute a product of their labor using a copyright license of their choice. Under your system, they would be forced to give up this right and open source the product, or provide free unlimited updates. Sounds rather harsh on smaller software companies that don't make billions of dollars!
> but I do think people should have the freedom to fix software they bought ("right to repair").
People have been patching binaries themselves for the past several decades. AFAIK they haven't sued a user. But yes, it would be nice if this was codified in law that an end-user can patch a binary on their machine.
With physical hardware people would be up in arms about it, but for software it's considered "normal". I don't think it should.
I'm not asking for "free unlimited labour", I just want software that 1) works and 2) doesn't need replacing at the cost of millions of dollars every few years. I don't think that's an especially ridiculous thing to ask for.
You don't need to "open source" the code in the sense of "put it on GitHub"; you can give people more limited access to the code (or just parts of the code).
Microsoft also sells maintenance contracts for Windows XP, but also to large bulk customers to the tune of millions of dollars. It could choose to sell it to anyone for $2/month or whatever price is realistic.
Either way, there are more options than "free unlimited labour" and "open source it".
The problem is equating "you can" with "must be forced to".
>There's another way of saying it: the software has a defect, and not only does the vendor refuse to fix the defect, it also prevents me from fixing it.
>With physical hardware people would be up in arms about it, but for software it's considered "normal". I don't think it should.
That's quite an exaggeration. You can't realistically fix bugs in CPU chips, or USB micro-controllers or bluetooth radios or cellphone antenna radio chips. "So then Intel should open up their CPU design" and/or "But I should be able to" is not really an argument, because anyone could say the opposite and be on equal grounds.
So now, the only principal argument that I can see us having is "should freedoms have limits" or "what freedoms are essential", and we would probably agree on most things, but it seems to me that we just come out at different positions on a spectrum.
>Microsoft also sells maintenance contracts for Windows XP, but also to large bulk customers to the tune of millions of dollars. It could choose to sell it to anyone for $2/month or whatever price is realistic.
Okay, but that is a business decision that was made because a lucrative customer demanded it as a requirement before purchase. I don't see the connection. Both parties entered into a voluntary contract... well for the most part.
On the other extreme, you are free to hire a software developer, and get software made which you can choose to release under an open source license.
Personally I happen to think that data interoperability is more crucial than the software itself. All software does in the end is just manipulate data. Its possible to have a rich variety of software when the data interchange format is standardized and protected from monopolistic abuse. The foremost example being the internet packet protocols.
Doesn't the first part of your sentence contradict the second? The only way it would be possible to patch software yourself is if you had the source code.
(I suppose you could reverse engineer the binary, but that's not practical, and besides, you could do that today if you wanted to.)
I think there are more options than just "open source it all" and "keep it all proprietary". You could, for example, only provide the source code (or parts of the source) under a NDA contract when requested and merge "community fixes" upstream, or something. I don't know what would work well in practice (not many businesses have experimented with it) but I'm fairly confident a model can be though of that works well yet isn't "open source" in the sense that we understand it today.
I have a suspicion that at some point Microsoft are going to back down on the big deal-breakers. They don't try to push their luck with those kinds of games in their enterprise products, because the big customers simply won't accept them. The frequent failures are just proving the critics right, and there have already been tentative moves to moderate the problems with mandatory updates. If changes in that sort of direction go far enough, they will appeal to smaller but serious customers who aren't running enterprise editions but have similar concerns.
If Microsoft really don't take the hint and back down when it comes to the crunch, I suspect Windows 7 will make the immortality of XP look like an amateurish trial run. I know my businesses all stocked up on Windows 7 machines a couple of years back while we still could, and since then we've been actively investigating multiple possible alternatives to Windows desktops for future use. Looking for alternatives seems to be the general trend across the other small tech businesses within my network as well, so if Microsoft think they're going to call everyone's bluff and get the whole world to migrate to 10 next year by shutting off updates for 7, I suspect they have seriously misjudged their market.
The actual deal breaker are bugs who can be exploited and need to be fixed. And while its unfair to expect bug free software, fixing them is not new functionality.
If it were open source, other people could pick it up (gratis or for a fee). Right now, nobody can (except for Microsoft), because it is proprietary software. Microsoft brought it upon themselves to release the software as such.
More seriously, how much of their code could they release without giving away much of their next operating system. Certainly by the fact that this bug effects versions of the OS going back 15 years we can be relatively certain that the code contained between them has a lot of identical parts.
It wouldn't be "open source" or "free software" as we understand it today, but I don't mind, and it's a lot better than what we have now.
Forced internalization of externalities and transparency of risk (by vendors establishing both a firm lifecycle and a patching regime) provide the right incentives to make that happen.
In other words, the world of networked devices is a world of constant change. It must rid itself of those not fit for that change. People can run XP until the sun burns out, they just can't connect it to anything that's not theirs.
Nobody gave a shit about it. And this wasn't some crazy seat-of-the pants startup. It was a mature software company, employing >40 engineers (in that division alone), that had been building, and selling software for many, many years.
We'd also develop inside VMs. That is, we'd install Visual Studio, our product, Seapine source control...
And you're claiming that, it working, is not a legitimate reason to keep using it?
Like any other large industrial org, there's some bits of million-pound kit with integrated, essential XP. Likewise old essential software where the support has literally retired, running on 2003. We've got roadmaps for replacing it, but they're not instant.
We manage it as best we can. But broadly we're just about to go to 10 on desktops, so we're not as bad as the police!
It's Windows 7 now, I'm now seeing some staff get Windows 10 machines deployed to them.