[exe34]

that's where we disagree: you don't usually need to stay current. as long as it does the job, it's current enough. if there's new features available that would add value to the business, then you have a business case to buy a new license. 95% of software update haven't really added any value since the early 00s.

[ghaff]

I'm not sure I want to work at a company that nickels and dimes purchases to the degree that I'm running unsupported 20 year old software because someone in procurement doesn't think I need an upgrade unless I write up a business case for it. I assume they're equally cheap in many other ways.

[AlbertCory]

He didn't say "unsupported." He said no new features. I assume he meant "still fixing bugs."

[ghaff]

So, in other words, you need to upgrade--or have a subscription. In fact, extended support agreements for some enterprise products are a premium offering that don't require moving up to the next version given the effort associated with backporting bug fixes for a fairly small base.

[AlbertCory]

I'm not sure how that's implied, but: paying a subscription for them to fix bugs and keep up with all the churn under them seems reasonable to me.

[ghaff]

And enterprise companies often do that. But that's different from pay once and you're done forever which was the original comment.

[AlbertCory]

I went quite a ways up the parent chain without seeing anyone seriously proposing that. All executables become unusable eventually (except maybe for IBM mainframes), so "pay once and you're done forever" is inherently impossible.

Unless you keep running every part of the hardware / software stack, which works only until some piece of hardware wears out.

[exe34]

and that's why we ended up with agile and alpha crapware released every week, breaking functionality that used to work and moving everything useful around until you can't find it.