^^^^
This! Also, they're making money from the "Windows 10 extended support contracts" for those who don't (or sometimes can't) upgrade. And it's all artificial yet unavoidable due to this continued monopoly.

Hard disagree on that one! New vulnerabilities are discovered over time, which will become exploits on these unpatched systems.

I have a better idea: use that taxpayer money to take them to the courts again in order to break up the Microsoft monopoly and force them to split off the OS company once and for all. No more illegal bundling.

This would have a deterrent effect that would ensure that this sort of thing never happens again.

I figured that this would come up at some point in this thread, but you have to remember that the migration from 32-bit to 64-bit systems was done VERY gradually (over the course of ~20 years).

With the Windows 10 EOL there is a specific cutoff date and, in some extreme cases, there are 5 year old computers that don't meet the new requirements. Totally different, imo.

I would also point out that there are still plenty of Linux distros (Void, Arch and Peppermint, to name a few) that DO still provide a 32-bit option.

I agree, which is one of the problems. On the whole, we'll be LESS secure.

Okay, I'm stealing that one! Hilarious!

Not really. In most government agencies, I'd say workers spend most of their time in a single application (like SAP) and the rest of their time doing other things on the web or using an office suite. In fact, in large organizations, this "one app" is a web application on the intranet. All you really need is a web browser, printer drivers and an office suite. Many office suites are also web-based these days. Considering today's labor market, if it were a job requirement to retrain on new software, I don't think it would be an issue.

If the rollout is gradual, it can be done. It HAS been done.

This is not the same thing AT ALL. Those desktop Linux systems can be upgraded to the next version. There are no new hardware requirements to upgrade to a new, supported version of Linux.

They absolutely are not running Windows 11 on all of their systems, and they DO NOT all have LTS agreements in place. Not even close. I know this for a fact, because I work for one of them.

It is more difficult than it used to be; that's a known fact. And, at least in the earlier days, you could uninstall Internet Explorer. However, none of your argument negates the fact that it is likely to be viewed by the courts as an illegal monopoly. There IS a distinction. Monopolies in and of themselves aren't illegal; it's the bundling of additional products and services that make it illegal. NONE of your argument addresses this fact.

I really don't have much of a "dog in this fight," since I run Linux on all of my personal and work systems (including ALL of our servers). Yes, we do provide support for some Windows laptop and desktop systems but, fortunately, we're one of the lucky ones in terms of funding so it's not an issue. Regardless, I agree with many of the other posts on this topic: however "out of touch with reality" you think I am, the reality is that one of the many consequences of this decision will be that, overall, there will be LESS network security. Mom and pop are not about to go out and buy a new computer just because their existing system stopped receiving updates. Microsoft can't disable computers and force them to, because that would be illegal. Same goes for that local shop down the street. They'll just continue to use what they have. You need two things to fix this situation: a mandate and proper funding. We've never been in this situation before, and I stand by that fact.

And believe me when I tell you this: there is not a single Congress member who WILL NOT be affected by this decision.

On a side note though, it should be interesting to watch. I'll definitely have popcorn in the pantry!

I've been in the IT industry for a VERY long time. Before Linux, and before the IBM PC was even a thing (I "cut my teeth" doing Cobol/RPG programming on the TRS-80 back in the day). So, believe me when I say that an act of artificial obsolescence on this scale is truly unprecedented. Honestly, I expect that Microsoft will walk back this decision before the October deadline occurs for a number of reasons, number one of which is that it could spell the end of Microsoft's dominance in the OS market (and, consequently, other markets).

I believe that, at the very least, it will restart conversations (at every level of government) of the continued existence of Microsoft's monopoly power in the market. And rightfully so, if you think about it. When Microsoft was first brought to task for illegal use of this monopoly, it was in large part due to the bundling of Internet Explorer with its operating system. Here we are, I don't know how many years later and, if anything, it has become even MORE DIFFICULT to choose a different web browser with Windows 11. You literally have to change the default program for EVERY web document/technology separately! And FORGET about uninstalling it; that's not happening. To top it all off, they're using the same monopoly to bundle additional products like Office 365, OneDrive, Teams etc. It's as if they actually WON the previous monopoly case at this point!

Now, where I think this really matters (and Microsoft has not adequately considered the ramifications) is in government sectors at all levels. At a moment in time where the economy isn't doing that great, government budgets are tightening. At the same time, network security is of paramount importance (especially in the age of state actors!). I know of at least ONE major university (the one in my area) that has a state mandate wherein ALL state government-owned systems must be able to receive security updates on a timely basis. Otherwise, they MUST be decommissioned. I'm sure it's similar at the federal level. I hate to think about how this will affect K12 schools. These institutions don't have the budgets to replace such a substantial number of systems that they rely on daily in order to function, all at the whim of a single company. Put simply: yes, Microsoft is still a monopoly that is abusing its monopoly power.

Back in 2015, Microsoft declared Windows 10 to be "the last version of Windows." People, and governments, were fine with it. Well 10 years later, and this is the EXACT OPPOSITE of that. Part of the reason for this is because, these days, publicly-traded companies don't think long-term. They care about earnings conference calls and stock prices. Can we really trust almost ALL of our modern IT infrastructure to ONE of these companies?

There's a reason why some government entities (especially in Germany) are switching to Linux and open-source solutions, and it's all about reducing vendor lock-in. Should this artificial "end-of-life" actually come to pass with Windows 10, I think we'll be seeing a much bigger uptick in this trend. I can imagine a world where entire nations standardize on Debian, Ubuntu or some other desktop Linux distribution or derivative. How ironic would it be if, as a result of one disastrous decision by Microsoft, the entire state of California mandated that ALL government PCs must run on Cali Linux (a standardized desktop Debian derivative that I just made up)? In this utopia, I can imagine a state agency that oversees and funds the development of this derivative (with some funding going to Debian and some other open source projects of course). The same agency could invite companies to submit bids for contracted support for the various government agencies (after all, "if you build it, they will come!").

Surely, Satya Nadella cannot be this dumb.

A very large segment of Windows users have NEVER payed for an OS update or upgrade, and they aren't about to start doing so now. Mark my words, they'll end up walking back on the planned (and entirely fake) obsolescence of Windows 10. All of these Windows machines that are no longer being updated will be targeted in a huge malware campaign at some point, and it will be a big deal. This is the type of thing that gets politicians talking and bringing up the "M" word again, and MS wants to avoid this at all cost. At some point, they'll walk this back.

Well put! This describes the situation perfectly IMO, and I think it's important to point these things out as it sounds as if Torvalds has already been thrust into the unfortunate situation of having to deal with state actors on these matters. It's bad enough having to stay vigilant against your ordinary, standard (peacetime?) bad actors, such as those related to the recent "XZ" incident. I expect that he has neither the time nor patience to deal with state-sponsored campaigns, so his response makes total sense to me.

Even worse is the required MS account creation for Windows 11 setup. I can't believe the FTC hasn't done something about this yet. IANAL, but this seems like very obvious illegal monopoly behavior to me.

This. I no longer have ANY Windows installs on my machines (except for one VM on my laptop for some dev work), and it's specifically due to the BS Microsoft online account requirement. I'm even in the process of converting my son's PC and laptop to Mint Linux (and the desktop is a newly built gaming PC with TPM2 support!). He's a college student/gamer, and even HE has had it with Windows! Windows 11 is an absolute train wreck. Things he mentions specifically:

1. MS online account requirement
2. Bloatware that cannot be removed
3. The worst update procedure ever created by man (on a side note, I recently set up a new laptop system that required SEVEN reboots in order to bring it up-to-date! This is clearly ridiculous IMO.)

It is painfully evident to him that he no longer has control over his own systems.

For me, this is Debian. It's all I run in the server-space, and my desktops are all based off of Debian.

> Use distributed forums instead of Reddit.

This seems to be where everyone is headed, namely Lemmy and federated space...