Hacker News Reader

> It's not Microsoft's fault that people depend on Windows XP. IMHO it's the fault of companies buying hardware and software from manufacturers who are unwilling or unable to upgrade their product to run on newer versions of Windows.

It is Microsoft's fault. A software customer doesn't know that a vendor is going to go out of business or get bought by a competitor that discontinues their product and promotes an incompatible alternative with seven figure transition costs.

Microsoft are the ones who worked so hard to make sure that software for Windows isn't compatible with not-Windows, creating all their own alternatives to POSIX, OpenGL, Open Firmware and everything else so that it's as difficult as possible for software compatible with Windows XP to be compatible with any Unix or Linux, leaving the user out in the cold if it also isn't compatible with Vista or later.

> To put it another way: the only reason there is a huge demand for COBOL programmers is because banks are too spendthrift to rewrite their software in more modern languages.

The reason there is huge demand for COBOL programmers is that it's more reasonable to hire a COBOL programmer than to discard a working system with a multi-million dollar replacement cost. "Just throw away everything you own and start over from nothing" is only rarely cost effective.

> It is Microsoft's fault. A software customer doesn't know that a vendor is going to go out of business or get bought by a competitor that discontinues their product and promotes an incompatible alternative with seven figure transition costs.

It is categorically NOT Microsoft's fault that software vendors are bought or go out of business. It's on the software customer to ensure that they don't get stuck with vendor lock-in.

Reverse the situation: A bunch of critical systems which run Linux 2.4 are being compromised by cyber criminals via a kernel exploit. You're going to argue that it's Linus' fault for providing such a great kernel and not supporting it forever?

Or that it's Linus' fault vendor XY who hasn't existed since 2 mergers ago chose Linux 2.4 for their product and now aren't around to provide updates for legacy software?

> Microsoft are the ones who worked so hard to make sure that software for Windows isn't compatible with not-Windows, creating all their own alternatives to POSIX, OpenGL, Open Firmware and everything else so that it's as difficult as possible for software compatible with Windows XP to be compatible with any Unix or Linux, leaving the user out in the cold if it also isn't compatible with Vista or later.

And so does every other operating system on the planet. You cannot take a MacOS binary and run it on Linux. And until very recently you couldn't take a Linux binary and run it on Windows.

You could argue that with Linux, the only thing preventing it from running Win32 or MachO binaries is that those operating systems are closed source, but this is the world we live in. If you want a "universal" binary, write it in something like Java.

https://xkcd.com/927/

> The reason there is huge demand for COBOL programmers is that it's more reasonable to hire a COBOL programmer than to discard a working system with a multi-million dollar replacement cost. "Just throw away everything you own and start over from nothing" is only rarely cost effective.

Yes, and I feel that I addressed this when I said "because banks are too spendthrift to rewrite their software"

It's a business decision. Currently it's cheaper for banks to hire COBOL programmers at obscene rates to fix their software. Eventually, there either won't be COBOL programmers, or they'll be too expensive, and the bean counters will dictate it's time to rewrite.

> Reverse the situation: A bunch of critical systems which run Linux 2.4 are being compromised by cyber criminals via a kernel exploit. You're going to argue that it's Linus' fault for providing such a great kernel and not supporting it forever?

I think there's a simpler way to think about this. Windows XP still functions for these businesses, and many of them would gladly pay an ongoing subscription fee for support. Sure, Microsoft wants to expand, but I don't see why that has to happen exclusive of supporting their well-loved early 2000s release. I run software which hasn't changed substantially for more than 20 years on a daily basis, and I don't see why Microsoft has to pretend that that's not a use case.

> > Microsoft are the ones who worked so hard to make sure that software for Windows isn't compatible with not-Windows, creating all their own alternatives to POSIX, OpenGL, Open Firmware and everything else so that it's as difficult as possible for software compatible with Windows XP to be compatible with any Unix or Linux, leaving the user out in the cold if it also isn't compatible with Vista or later.

> And so does every other operating system on the planet. You cannot take a MacOS binary and run it on Linux. And until very recently you couldn't take a Linux binary and run it on Windows.

Open Firmware, POSIX, and OpenGL are explicitly not related in any way to binary compatibility. You can run unmodified OpenGL programs (with some abstraction) on Linux and OS X out of the box, and with some fiddling, on Windows as well.

It's clear that this is an argument that Microsoft has refused to support standard APIs, not standard ABIs.

How many apps are there really that run on the win32 API of Windows XP, but not on the one of Windows 7/8.1/10?

Not saying there aren't any, but nearly everything I've seen fail has been coupled to hardware drivers, where other platforms are just as bad, or other outdated APIs, e.g. ancient versions/insecure configurations of Java. This is a big problem in IT, but I don't think it's fair to blame Microsoft more than others for it. Maybe for making as much a mess of Vista as they did, but 7 was still available more than early enough for slow migration.

(And at least the NHS had an extended support contract for Windows XP, but ended that at some point, despite (as far as I know) it still being available from MS for other big customers)

> It is categorically NOT Microsoft's fault that software vendors are bought or go out of business. It's on the software customer to ensure that they don't get stuck with vendor lock-in.

It is Microsoft's fault that the programs only run on Windows XP. If they had used standard open APIs it would have been much easier to port the applications to other platforms to begin with, and more of the original developers would have done so before going out of business.

If you want to argue that customers should not buy Windows-specific software you'll get no argument from me, but that is certainly not Microsoft's position.

> Reverse the situation: A bunch of critical systems which run Linux 2.4 are being compromised by cyber criminals via a kernel exploit. You're going to argue that it's Linus' fault for providing such a great kernel and not supporting it forever?

Linus absolved himself by providing source code. If you really want to keep using Linux 2.4 and patch it yourself, you can, and some companies actually do.

> You cannot take a MacOS binary and run it on Linux.

https://www.darlinghq.org/

And that project is in a weak state not for difficulty but for lack of demand, because so many programs that run on one OS already run natively on both since it's so much easier to port between them than between Windows and anything else.

> You could argue that with Linux, the only thing preventing it from running Win32 or MachO binaries is that those operating systems are closed source, but this is the world we live in. If you want a "universal" binary, write it in something like Java.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Java_Virtual_Machine

> Yes, and I feel that I addressed this when I said "because banks are too spendthrift to rewrite their software"

> It's a business decision.

That's the point. How is it not also a business decision with Windows XP, which Microsoft has forced everyone to make in a way that many would otherwise not?

> To put it another way: the only reason there is a huge demand for COBOL programmers is because banks are too spendthrift to rewrite their software in more modern languages.

I heard that medical devices are approved (by whatever regulatory body) to run an _exact_ set of software. As such, even applying a security update invalidates the approval, because it could potentially introduce bugs that place a patient's life at risk.

Not sure that those systems are connected to the Internet.

The software affected in the NHS was mainly in GP surgeries and admin offices to do with scheduling of procedures. Not directly life-threatening in the sense of a machine going wrong but indirectly damaging in the sense of procedures and consultations having to be cancelled, records not being available &c.

Looking decades into future I'm wondering: Web applications + fairly basic clients Chromebook style for the scheduling/records stuff.

The computers that store patient records (which were compromised) are not medical devices under any regulatory regime I know of.

And in any case the compromises were in the UK, which may have different rules on this subject than the FDA.

Yeah, my point was just that sometimes systems have out of date security for reasons besides penny pinching and laziness. :)

From a security standpoint the best thing is to stop adding features and fix security issues as they are found so the system gradually becomes secure.

The upgrade treadmill is good for microsoft's revenue stream, but bad for customers who already have a working system. New != better, just different. I guarantee you that w10 has just as many security holes as xp, they just haven't been found yet because it's so new.

If there is no revenue stream, where do the resources to fix security issues come from?

Aren't the vast majority of Windows revenues from new PC sales and volume licensing?

Both would continue if Windows was "perfect" feature-wise and only security updates were provided going forward.

> if Windows was "perfect" feature-wise and only security updates were provided going forward.

Therefore the kernel is secure, assuming spherical cows are used in the bubble memory of the return stack.

One possibility is from the huge surplus that they collected when they initially sold the software.

It seems to ultimately boil down to software becoming more expensive to sell, especially when it will be used in critical situations.

But that's handled by the contract at the point of sale. One Windows XP with N years of support for $ money.

Legally, they are covered.

Sure, there is this specific situation where Microsoft probably isn't on the hook for anything.

But there is also the more abstract problem of how hospitals and the like go about using computers.

It is absolutely Microsoft's fault.

Many of the existing XP computers a big monolithic systems that have been decentralized so Microsoft could sell more licenses.

Think networks of retail stores using hundreds or thousands of PCs for their point-of-sale. Or government agencies like the DMV with locations in every rural county.

They put a PC on every not-quite-a-desk.

and did they say "don't ever upgrade this"?

>It's not Microsoft's fault that people depend on Windows XP.

When XP was released, Microsoft was unarguably a monopoly. Monopolistic businesses have responsibilities that other, non-monopolistic businesses don't. The law is vague, but the FTC could reasonably force Microsoft to continue to patch security problems in windows XP forever. After all, the defects to which the support period refers existed within that support period, regardless of when they were proven to exist.

>banks are too spendthrift

Only being a pedant because this came up in /r/soccer today about an hour beforehand. That means the opposite of what you want it to mean.

> That means the opposite of what you want it to mean.

Thanks! I actually didn't know this. Do you have a suggestion of a better term for the behaviour I'm trying to describe? I was trying to be more elegant than "cheap"

> It's not Microsoft's fault that people depend on Windows XP.

It absolutely is. Not releasing the Windows XP successor in 2004 as it was promised to customers and shareholders is their fault. Microsoft only released a successor 6 years after XP release, 3 years later than promised. And it doesn't help Windows Vista was a disaster on its release.