In practice, though, you need to upgrade to stay current. For software that people use as a daily driver, subscriptions are not obviously more expensive in general.
that's where we disagree: you don't usually need to stay current. as long as it does the job, it's current enough. if there's new features available that would add value to the business, then you have a business case to buy a new license. 95% of software update haven't really added any value since the early 00s.
I'm not sure I want to work at a company that nickels and dimes purchases to the degree that I'm running unsupported 20 year old software because someone in procurement doesn't think I need an upgrade unless I write up a business case for it. I assume they're equally cheap in many other ways.
So, in other words, you need to upgrade--or have a subscription. In fact, extended support agreements for some enterprise products are a premium offering that don't require moving up to the next version given the effort associated with backporting bug fixes for a fairly small base.
I went quite a ways up the parent chain without seeing anyone seriously proposing that. All executables become unusable eventually (except maybe for IBM mainframes), so "pay once and you're done forever" is inherently impossible.
Unless you keep running every part of the hardware / software stack, which works only until some piece of hardware wears out.
exe34 15 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next [–]
> $495 per application.
it was a lifetime licence though. you can probably still run it today.
Also:
that's where we disagree: you don't usually need to stay current. as long as it does the job, it's current enough. if there's new features available that would add value to the business, then you have a business case to buy a new license. 95% of software update haven't really added any value since the early 00s.
-----
Maybe I misinterpreted but the implication is I could run something from the early 00s without changes which--while true in some cases--I wouldn't do in general.
> Maybe I misinterpreted but the implication is I could run something from the early 00s without changes
Yes, you did. If he meant that, he wasn't thinking. Some piece of your hardware won't work with the old software, unless it's also old. You get a new printer and there are no drivers for the old OS. The old software won't work with the new network. You want some new app and it doesn't work with the old software. Etc. Etc.
We ran into this in Google Patent Litigation all the time. You have to have old everything to run old software, whether your license is still good or not.
But I think we agree that paying for maintenance only, and no new features, is fair. Of course, most vendors don't want to do that; they want to shove new "features" down your throat.
When I worked for an enterprise Linux vendor, we definitely provided long-term support/maintenance options followed by security patches. It was mostly for government-related but also for some companies, especially those that were using it for embedded applications. But we also had meetings with those customers regularly who certainly weren't just installing the software and not touching it for 10+ years.
I've also known customers who have old software, e.g. for test systems, just running on old systems who basically don't breathe on the ancient systems. For years, United's entertainment system would also sometimes reboot to a 20+ year-old pre-Red Hat Enterprise Linux kernel but that's not really a critical system.
There were these two clean-cut young men in short-sleeved white shirts and ties who came to my door and handed me a pamphlet. I think it was about that.
and that's why we ended up with agile and alpha crapware released every week, breaking functionality that used to work and moving everything useful around until you can't find it.
