But the second half was not so great. While I agree with the overall sentiment, the concrete examples always slightly miss the point.
-----
The first such passage that caught my eye was the example about Windows XP:
> Rather than offer users persuasive reasons to upgrade software, vendors insist we look on upgrading as our moral duty. The idea that something might work fine the way it is has no place in tech culture.
The problem is that Windows XP is not working just fine, especially when connected to the Internet. It is full of malware and helps establishing botnets, DDOS attacks and thus feeds mafia structures. So we, as a soeciety, do have a moral obligation to retire Windows XP.
Also, nobody is forced by law to use Microsoft. There are plenty of alternatives. Most of those will run smoothly on your old hardware, such as MINT, Ubuntu or whatever. And for normal Office and Web stuff, this "jump" is surely less painful than switching to the latest Windows version.
Of course Microsoft is still to blame here, but for something entirely different: For closing Windows XP support. For not applying serious security fixing to it. I bet there are plenty of companies and people that are more than willing to pay for ongoing maintenance of Windows XP, but the only company that could offer that service denys it.
-----
So the author missed the real point, even though this point is totally in line with the overall sentiment of the article. And it goes on and on like that, in the second half. That makes it a really annoying read.