So basically, you mean further shortening the already short life span of software ?

Some big companies are not over migrating from NT to 2K (well yeah it takes some time when you have 10000+ workstations and 800+ servers to manage), and you'd like them all to already go for XP and 2003 ?

Then besides the big companies, you also have SOHOs or home users that pay attention to the security of their software. Not all these people have the money or time to change versions every 18-24 months.
If I buy an OS or an Office Suite, I expect it to be supported at least for 4 or 5 years, regardless of how long ago it has been released. Especially if there are some free alternatives out there.

I've always felt that the constant upgrade race was a modern form of racket, but this article takes it a step further.

What's next ? Suggesting Microsoft to release a worm that will effectively destroy all legacy software still out there ? Ending support as soon as a product leaves the beta phase ?

There's one thing I like about your columns, Mr. Mullen : after reading each of them, I agree or disagree totally with its contents. I never found myself being neutral (or not caring) about any one of them.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/217/24733#24733