|
| ▲ | gchamonlive 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Maybe it wasn't which is worse, meaning Microsoft despite being in the top 10 most valuable companies in the world can't even get these basic details right. I think assuming this was intentional is actually giving Microsoft the benefit of the doubt tbh. |
| |
| ▲ | Kapura 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | do you like, not understand how capitalism does to tech | | |
| ▲ | gchamonlive 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | The semantic function of modulators like "maybe" and "I think" implies the statement is hypothetical. My comment was intended to subvert the expectations around the intentionality behind Microsoft actions to make it look even worse than it is. It's got nothing to do with the enshitification of products in closed software immersed in our current economic ethos. I hope this clarifies my "understanding of [what] capitalism does to tech". But I'm fun at parties, I swear :P |
|
|
|
| ▲ | superkuh 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I don't mean to imply it isn't. I wouldn't be surpised. I just have no evidence of such. CA TLS is messy and pretty much impossible to get right even over medium timescales. But it does reminds me of when Garmin GPS would make the storage filesystem limited to say, 3GB of read size, then offer "lifetime map updates" while knowing that in a few years the new map size will not be readable on old Garmin devices. |
| |
| ▲ | harry8 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | “ the original 2023 end-of-support page had been re-dated and rewritten on Microsoft's site; the "continue to function" clause was removed” You sound like a shill trying to muddy the waters. It’s petty clear when they silently change their web pages to delete features sold that it’s quite deliberate or did they accidentally do that too? Do you have a direct or indirect relationship with microsoft perchance or just missed it in TFA maybe? | | |
| ▲ | II2II 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If you're talking about the modified web pages, then disabling the licenses is intentional. If you're talking about the original decision to use certificates around 2019, it is more doubtful. Sure, they would have known the certificates would expire, they could push out a small update to remedy that, and that they would eventually stop doing so. On the other hand, doing so seven or eight years later on a platform where they could probably wait another five years and expect Apple to do the job for them (i.e. Apple isn't going to maintain Intel support forever). That seems like an invitation for angry and potentially litigious users. | |
| ▲ | superkuh 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Far from it. I'm a "shill" for my own private cause of trying to point out that CA TLS is so bad it cannot be differentiated from malicious behavior and offers as a cover for it. Also, did you not read, "But Microsoft did and that's on them.". I have no relation to microsoft. | | |
| ▲ | Lammy 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I agree with you. I hate that there's any mechanism with a built-in time limit that anyone can sell as a Good Thing to well-meaning but naive people. Look we're using encryption; you like that right? More encryption == more secure == your peers will attack you if you don't like it. |
|
|
|
