|
|
|
|
|
by cloudsec9
519 days ago
|
|
Okay, I understand what you are trying to say, but some of what you are using as examples doesn't support your argument. Games, unless they are simple single player games, need the network. Scientific sims and math research are best served on the latest hardware, which often needs the latest OS/software to get the most out of it.
I think your arguing that MOST software should run without needing to be updated, and when we lived in a dial-up world and before, that was a very viable position. But with all of our machines on an always on network, the OS has to be kept up to date. Most businesses just want things to work; their software/hardware costs are often rounding errors when amortized over their lifetime. I'm sympathetic to users who have paid for programs wanting to run them forever, but software businesses have to make money and sell new versions, so they add new features and follow the OS upgrades.
It's hard for businesses to support older software or a big diversity of versions; it's why companies mandate a standard and try to enforce it. With Microsoft, they are making millions on OS and related basic programs, and so can afford to support things for a long time. With OSS like Linux, there is less funding and less people who are interested in running old versions.
As someone who has had to keep some software up to date on Linux, it can sometimes be more of a pain to update a package (because of dependencies) them to just recompile the thing from source.
The 5 years that LTS releases get are good for 2 average commercial update cycles, which I think is reasonable. Beyond that, people's skills are going to be out of date. |
|