[jrochkind1]

MOSTLY.

> Windows releases where Internet Explorer will still be available after June 15, 2022, include Windows 7 ESU, Windows 8.1, and all versions of Windows 10 LTSC client, IoT, and Server.

> "The Internet Explorer (IE) 11 desktop application will end support for Windows 10 semi-annual channel starting June 15, 2022," Microsoft says on the IE11 lifecycle page.

> As Microsoft further explains, "for supported operating systems, Internet Explorer 11 will continue receiving security updates and technical support for the lifecycle of the Windows version on which it is installed."

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/internet-exp...

I gotta say... MS is serious about long-term support commitments and backwards compat!

[Sunspark]

I've never quite understood this MS policy of "ending support" but continuing support anyway for extended support contract customers or for specific versions, etc.

The way I look at it, MS obviously is actually continuing to support the product, they are just choosing not to make it available to most people. It's still supported, just not for everyone.

I feel that if security patches are still being produced, they should be released as opposed to expecting people to use nothing, or roll their own by getting patches from a third party.

They could be released as "donations" to the public good from the big customers.

[krylon]

As I recall (vaguely) Microsoft did release a few security fixes for Windows XP and Windows 7 after their respective ends-of-lives on a case-by-case basis when the security issue was especially bad.

I am by no means a fan of Microsoft's, but when you release an OS and some applications and provide security fixes for ten years, asking for people who want to continue using that OS/app beyond that point to buy a support contract is not a complete dick move. In the FLOSS world, you may get volunteers who maintain a piece of software as a labor of love, but with something like Windows or IE, someone needs to pay people to do that work.

It might make sense to create something like a foundation to take care of the long term support for software, which would benefit everyone. I'm kind of surprised actually that this has not happened, yet (to my knowledge, at least).

[brutusborn]

I wonder if it is because customer-specific patches break parts of the software that most users use, to make it easier to fix the bugs the customer cares about.

But more than likely it is because deploying to that 1 customer is always going to be easier that deploying it publically.

[5e92cb50239222b]

At least Canonical and SUSE are doing the same with their extended support contracts. The patches are being produced, you just have to pay for them.

[CptJupiterNorth]

The more people using your old software legitimately, the more people you have to tell that the bug they found isn't a security issue worthy of your time. Plus it's a kick in the pants to get organizations who can to upgrade.