I do think, though, that it's a valid counter argument to say that users knew (or should have known) the kind of deal they where making with Microsoft when they bought Windows XP. Instead of criticizing Microsoft, they should be pointing out that free software operating systems typically are much more friendly and respectful of the user's rights, even rights beyond being able to modify that operating system.

The FSF has always had a problem explaining to the average user why they should care about the ability to modify their own software when they lack the expertise to do so; Windows 10 is providing a practical example.

This is the exception rather than the rule (speaking in general terms)

You can pay someone else to isolate and secure your XP installation as well (for the minimum amount of stuff you need in there). Put it in a VM, behind a firewall, secure it, prevent unknown services from running in it, etc.

Of course, you can also pay someone to do the same for a free software OS. You might even have more options for safely isolating it. I suspect the main point is that you have options, e.g. you don't simply have to isolate it (that may not work depending on how you use the software), you could also maintain / fork it.

In theory, with enough money, I'm sure you could also pay MS to maintain it for you or (as I've seen done once or twice in the business world) simply buy out the company and have them support it, but it seems like the cash barrier required to getting those things done could be lower than self-supporting the software in many circumstances.

That's true. However, for the majority of cases, it's not worth it.

You theoretically could have an old version of Red Hat running and then self-support there, but I believe the answer is probably something similar to what would be done with Windows XP. Even if what you need to run there is Free Software. Easier and probably more feasible, true. Still, very unlikely.

The last option you pointed out is a possibility as well and it happens, however it's usually a way of throwing a lot of money for very little gain

Frankly it reads like it was written by an angry teenager getting mad at The Man for his injustice. If I were trying to convince anyone to use Linux, I would actively discourage them from reading this.

I'm a bit miffed. The choir is already converted, so to speak, so this is not the intended audience, others, non converts, would mostly be put off by the over the top style and rhetoric.

Moreover, the article focuses on one vendor when other vendors follow similar policies but those aren't visited in the article.

So.... What gives?

It also focuses on Windows because the article is about Windows. :)

In these 8 years a lot of companies and individuals bought computers and then stayed on XP because (1) Windows upgrades cost money, (2) compatibility issues and (3) fear of upgrades (Microsoft never educated its users to upgrade, quite the contrary, they've made Windows users fear upgrades because of their fuck-ups with Windows ME or Vista).

Windows XP reached end of life on April 8, 2014, with people being stuck on it without a migration path. Nowadays 5 year old desktops and laptops are often good enough and don't need to be replaced. If you had a company with dozens or hundreds of computers, what would you do? Would you pay $120 before taxes for the Home edition or $199 before taxes for Pro, per computer? Would you try to negotiate better terms maybe? Or would you stay on XP because it works? The offer for a 1-year free upgrade for Windows 10 is not valid for XP and Vista.

And yes, Microsoft supported XP for 12 years. That's 4 years after those 8 years in which XP was the only choice. That's hardly an accomplishment.

They still have users on XP. For those users they have an ethical responsibility to provide security fixes, or a cheap migration path (why is the upgrade to Windows 10 not valid for XP?), or the source code such that they can fix problems by themselves.

As you said yourself, Windows is a commercial product - you get what you pay for. Microsoft don't really owe anybody anything beyond what they get paid to do - the only reason they kept XP support for so long is that to do otherwise would be a PR nightmare, all their big customers would be angry and all the regular folks would have machines (even more) full of malware.

The only real complaint I have against Windows' support is that it's update utility, "Windows Update", makes the whole process unnecessarily painful compared to the most Linux package managers.

Just as an aside, Windows Home (which you mentioned the cost of compared to Pro) wouldn't be an option for many businesses because you can't join Home editions of Windows to a Windows domain.

I had a reasonably competent machine, and Vista worked great on it from the day I switched (summer '07, only a few months after it released).

Making the comments others have said about your choice to exclude Vista as a viable option even stronger.

Even if Windows was way worse than it is now people would still use it.

Also I believe the two distros that have a shot at part of the Windows user base(Ubuntu and Steam OS) could also be defined as malware.

What has to be taken in mind is that FSF is about ideals. Which may explain why they put so much emphasis on concepts as opposed to practical matters.

Why are there are so many defensive anti GNU comments here? Do these actual facts that correctly paint Microsoft in a bad light really upset that many Microsoft users / workers / proprietary software proponents?

Also, what is with legitimate comments being ghosted on this site?

Rolling release distros are a different ball game entirely. If you take a copy of Windows 7 you can install every update from the initial release to present day. It might take you a while, but you could do it. Equally with your standard release cycle Linux distros, you could take a 3 year old copy of Ubuntu LTS (for example) and bring it bang up to date. However if you took a 3 year old image of a rolling release distro, you'd find it hugely more difficult to update (if at all possible).

Rolling release distros don't have a set end of life date because they're always incrementally reaching end of life. Particularly as breaking changes become old and unsupported (eg try taking an Arch Linux ISO before the filesystem, glibc and systemd packages and watch just how poorly that ISO updates). So something being "rolling release" doesn't mean it doesn't have an end of life - it just means you don't have to perform OS release upgrades.

> Why are there are so many defensive anti GNU comments here? Do these actual facts that correctly paint Microsoft in a bad light really upset that many Microsoft users / workers / proprietary software proponents?

Why do some people think you must be a fanboy or an employee to defend a product? If you want my honest personal opinion: I hate Windows. Absolutely despise it. Please bare in mind this is just my personal opinion, but I just cannot fathom it's maze of confusing windows, I don't like that it's command line is crippled and that Powershell is about as succinct as War And Peace. I hate the lack of a proper package manager (I could write a novel on how much I hate Windows Update). I hate the poor support for nix networking protocols. I hate the outdated file system support. I don't even find it aesthetically attractive. So there really isn't much I like about Windows.

At work I run Linux and manage Linux and Solaris servers (I'm devops) and at home I run Linux and FreeBSD. I don't own nor run a single Windows system and haven't done so in any serious capacity since the early days XP. I really couldn't be any further from the "pro-Microsoft" pigeon-hole you presumed.

I know there are people who feel the same way about Linux, and that's fine. I wouldn't want a Linux monopoly any more than I'd want a Windows monopoly. And I'm certainly not going to accuse those people of being Microsoft employees :P I just believe in being objective because nothing is perfect and we can't improve things if we look at everything with rose-tinted glasses.

> Also, what is with legitimate comments being ghosted on this site?

Most of the comments that have ghosted are because they were complaining that the article was factual thus couldn't be FUD. But that misses the point of what FUD is. FUD doesn't have to be a lie, it can also be a heavily biased fact that casts the opposition in an unfairly bad light. I personally felt the Windows XP support argument was one example of that; it was factually accurate but conveniently overlooks Linuxes similar issues of long term support

I do have a great deal of respect for GNU and RMS, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything posted in their name.

For run-of-the-mill desktop usage, i.e. Office stuff, eMail, Internet access, yes, not upgrading is either lazy or stupid.

But there are quite a few companies out there who have built applications that are critical to their operations and which do not run on versions of Windows more recent than XP. To be fair, that is just as big a problem, relying on proprietary APIs without even thinking of an upgrade path. It's not like Microsoft ending support for XP came as a total surprise nobody could have foreseen.

But sometimes, for example in industrial automation, once an installation has been certified, you cannot simply upgrade to a newer version of Windows. If the automation software does not run on newer versions of Windows (and it's an all-Windows game, as far as I can tell), upgrading means you also have to newer automation software, which means spending tons of money and then spending tons more for reprogramming the whole thing. Some automation engineers at the company where I work still have to deal with DOS for a few installations (at least on DOS, the lack of security updates is not an issue, but getting it to run on newer hardware is hard if not impossible, and keeping aging hardware going is a nightmare).

Microsoft made their schedule for ending XP support public years before it actually happened, and, say, three years should be enough even for a large company.

And even if one has to support legacy software, eventually hardware support becomes an issue as older devices start dying.

If upper management vetoes a migration/upgrade for cost reasons, that is one thing, but not having a plan at all is... kind of frightening.

Any company that was paying attention knew that they had a migration problem as soon as Vista appeared in beta. That was 10 years ago.

"After Longhorn was named Windows Vista in July 2005, an unprecedented beta-test program was started, involving hundreds of thousands of volunteers and companies. In September of that year, Microsoft started releasing regular Community Technology Previews (CTP) to beta testers from July 2005 to February 2006." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista

For comparison, that was before Twitter was founded (March 21, 2006) and before Facebook was opened to public access (September 26, 2006).

If you bought a copy of Windows XP at release it likely cost you around that much and patches and fixes were available to you for fourteen years at no further cost. The equivalent from Red Hat would have run $4200.

In addition, with redhat you get excellent support included (that's what you are really paying for). No such luck with microsoft, you just get crappy bottom tier tech support.

Finally, if you don't like paying redhat switch to centos. Free and no support.

The only thing you get at the low price point is access to patches, ISOs, and their KB/bug tracker.

How do you know this? I find it likely that they tested them for the specific use cases of the 0.1% who are actually going to receive the patches, since they are providing a specialized solution.

> And it's also just pointing out another instance of proprietary software and why it's bad, which if that is fud, well the core of linux and gnu are fud too.

You can want to use free software for some things without thinking proprietary software is bad for everything.

It seems highly unlikely. They are not writing custom ordered security patches. They are selling general security support to whoever can afford it.

Are you really uncertain about whether Microsoft will EOL your current Windows version, or what that will mean for legitimate businesses who need it to continue to function?

If you don't want to hear what the FSF has to say, that's fine. But their statements are carefully worded in the hopes we can have a calm, logical discussion about the issue -- user freedom has become impossible with Microsoft's latest OS.

This submission is not intended to be biased.