@pusher_robot's banner p

pusher_robot

PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 23:45:12 UTC

				

User ID: 278

pusher_robot

PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 23:45:12 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 278

To be clear here, they didn't know he was dying. The wound was not visible from their perspective.

What constitutes "knowledge" here? The victim clearly articulated several times that he had, in fact, been stabbed and could not breathe. If you invoke enough skepticism, nobody can truly "know" anything.

I'm sure it's doable, and they may end up doing it as a courtesy, but I don't think they're under any ethical obligation to do so. They announced the lifespan of the product when they sold it, everyone was clear there would be no promise of updates after that. It's not like they broke the certificate, the expiration was set long ago.

Apple could push a security patch that caused some undocumented functionality used by Office 2019 to crash. Apple says the code used by Office 2019 was insecure and they won't be modifying their security update to accommodate it. Is Microsoft still under any obligation to push out a patch to make sure it continues to function, in your view?

I totally get customer frustration with bitrot and the (seemingly unnecessarily) short lifecycle of software. One of Microsoft's great strengths for a long time was that they put a lot of effort into making sure your old unsupported software would run on new and improved Windows platforms. But this also became a major liability to them, and I also understand the need to draw a line at spending precious engineering effort fighting bitrot for products that have been superseded several times over. I would guess they will not legally pursue someone who makes, e.g., an unofficial certificate patch.

But here, Microsoft is a trillion-dollar company and explicitly promised the software would continue to function

No, I think that's greatly overstating the promise they made. It was a perpetual license, i.e., not a subscription. There were never any guarantees about the software continuing to function past its published support lifecycle. I'd agree with you if they had pushed an update to disable it, but bitrot is an utterly foreseeable consequence of using unsupported software.