Hacker News Reader

I think Microsoft has a better approach for Windows. They deliver regular updates for N years, but security updates for a lot longer. I agree it's fine not to deliver regular updates after EOL, but for critical security vulnerabilities, I think they could do a lot better than just 5 years.

After all, it's not exactly environmentally friendly for working hardware to get ditched just because of some software turns it useless.

View on HN

I totally agree, and stopped buying cisco a long time ago. 5 years is too short, i think i've had my current router for 10 already.

The EOL sucks, but that's what people kinda signed up for with Cisco.

It's 5 years from End of Sale, and not just 5 years from the initial sale date. It sucks for those that bought the router close to End of Sale, of course.

Don't know for how long these routers have been around, but for one of them I found a overview document dated 2011.

If I buy a washing machine and it breaks after 4 years, it doesn't matter that the model is 10 years old at that point. My rights are from time of purchase.

Should be same for devices. If not, they should at least carry a "best before date" like food, so you know at time of purchase how long you can expect to get updates.

Like, for example, if that hardware happens to be the hospital's MRI scanner.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com