[eropple]

Can you explain to me how a subscription, for which only subscribers get fixes, is not a perverse incentive to ship broken software?

Normal software has an argument towards subscriptions if it's adding features. But routers shouldn't be adding features. Routers should be fixing bugs.

[ghaff]

Companies seem to be doing a pretty good job of shipping broken software today without the perverse incentive of a subscription.

Companies do buy subscriptions for older software even though they may only be getting security fixes at this point.

That said, I do think bundling longer-term updates into the cost is better insofar as it means buyers don't get a choice to just use the unpatched software. But it does mean that companies can cut costs by just not patching software at all or for a short period (as today).

[eropple]

> But it does mean that companies can cut costs by just not patching software at all or for a short period (as today).

Sure. Hence the use of a very big stick.

The lack of restraint on bad actors is a societal problem, not an economic one.

[ghaff]

Of course, it's a big stick for both vendors and users. Vendors need to patch the software for N years (or whatever) and, given a competitive market, users have to pay for it.