Hacker News Reader

Comment by freehunter | Hacker News Reader

And I could keep fixing my 92 Toyota Corolla to keep it on the road, but at some point it becomes more effective to just move on. There are some things inherent in older software that go beyond a simple patch, design decisions that may have made sense at the time but don't today. The only real way to go about that is how Apple does it, releasing a huge service pack that makes pretty major changes to the OS. And at that point, it's hardly any different than the changes Microsoft makes in different versions of Windows, except for the GUI.

View on HN

Toyota doesn't get to come to your house and tow your Corolla away when they think you ought to move on. You get to decide that: it's your car, and it's your choice.

If Toyota feels so embarrassed by the fact that you are driving your Corolla that they want to spend some money trying to convince you to replace it, they can certainly make you a trade-in offer. But maybe you like your Corolla, or you don't feel like dealing with all the paperwork; for whatever reason, you decline the offer. Does Toyota get to come haul your car away and give you a new one regardless? Hell fucking no. It's your car.

If Microsoft wants people to stop using XP they have every right to try to tempt those XP users with a better offer, but some people just won't want to, and that is their right. Their computer, their choice.

If they offered me a 2016 Corolla in trade for a 2002 Corolla, I'd probably do it.

edit: If they had a recall/replacement on the car because it was unsafe for other drivers on the road, people would probably agree as well.

Key point being, "offered."

Microsoft is making an offer that most non-technical users can't refuse. That's not ethical. The ends don't justify the means.

There's actually precedent for that in the world of cars. The GM EV1 was leased out and later 100% recalled and destroyed. Under the license agreement with GM, they did have the ability to take away your car, much for the same reason Microsoft pushes OS upgrades: their inability or unwillingness to support the platform any further. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1#Program_can...

At some point Microsoft has to make breaking changes to Windows XP. Simple service packs won't suffice. Airbags, three point seatbelts, electronic fuel injection, variable valve timing, these are all modern conveniences that people expect in a car these days. Things that are very hard to retrofit into an old car without redesigning the platform at a core level. Sure, a 2016 and a 1992 model are still Corollas but it's hard to argue that Toyota should still be selling the 1992 model retrofitted to include all of our modern needs.

The argument here is "Microsoft should still be patching Windows XP." Should Toyota keep retrofitting modern safety features into their old car?

Except I didn't lease Windows 7 for a limited time, I licensed it for use without a time limit. If GM hadn't disclosed that the EV1 transaction was actually a lease -- meaning if they had gone into peoples' garages and towed 'their' EV1s away at a time of GM's choosing -- there would have been serious legal consequences. As there should be here.

You'll probably respond by saying that Microsoft is only doing what I authorized them to do on page 34, paragraph 8(c) of the EULA. At which point the only response I can offer is, "Fool me once, shame on me."

Sure, if I've leased the car from Toyota, maybe the terms of the lease obligate me to bring it in for service, and allow them to replace its carburetor with a fuel injector, fit it out with ABS, or whatever else. Depends on the lease, I suppose. Who owns the car, in this case? Not me, clearly.

I'm not arguing that Microsoft should be selling 1992 Corollas retrofitted with 2016-tech-level features; I'm arguing that it's the owner of the '92 Corolla who gets to decide whether, when, and how it should be upgraded or replaced. Toyota doesn't get to make that choice just because they manufactured the car; the owner of the car gets to make that choice. That's what ownership means.

If I own the computer, I get to decide what software I'm going to install on it, and that means I get to decide whether, when, and how to update it. Neither Microsoft nor any other OS maker gets to make that decision, because they do not own the computer in question.

> Toyota doesn't get to come to your house and tow your Corolla away when they think you ought to move on. You get to decide that: it's your car, and it's your choice.

Depends on where you live. In Germany TÜV has to regularly check your car for complying with street regulations, and if it doesn't pass, you don't get to drive it.

The only way to keep it is to keep it of the roads, and there's a nice :caranalogy: to keeping your insecure-via-age OS by keeping it offline.

That might well be a reasonable way to regulate the use of computing machines. I am not rejecting the idea of collective responsiblity! But Microsoft cannot grant themselves such governmental powers just by wishing to have them. If such a collective decision about safety and liability were to arise, it would have to be established democratically.

Toyota doesn't have to keep paying for your maintenance, whereas MS does keep having to pay for their time to develop patches for XP.

A better :caranalogy: would be whether, as emissions standards come in, you lose the ability to drive your old car unless you upgrade it. Except even then, Toyota doesn't pay for the new ECU instead of your carburetor, but you expect MS to keep maintaining an outdated seucrity model.

Moreover, if you don't upgrade it you DO get forced off the roads, namely by legislation prohibiting its registration.

But I can fix problems with a '92 Corolla. If Microsoft were to open source XP or Windows 7, perhaps the community would relieve Microsoft of the maintenance burden.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com