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

  • freeman@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    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.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        2 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 hours 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 hours 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.