The point is that to get further security updates, you have to spend money to run the new major version of Windows. You can run the most up-to-date Linux for free on a computer from 1989.

> You can run the most up-to-date Linux for free on a computer from 1989

Untrue.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/05/linux-to-end-support...

I tend to play around with old machines (late 80s, early 90s mostly) and getting any kind of modern-ish distro working on old machines, even distros really cut down, can be quite challenging.

That patch hasn't been merged yet, so it is in fact still true.

Good point.

As a response to the kernel's various SNAFUs, I've gone ahead and refunded to myself all of the money I've spent on Linux kernels over the past several decades -- and updated my install to the new version for free.

One might ask why we need security patches in the first place and why can't we write secure software from the beginning.

Aren't we just trying to do to much and releasing defective software. Why is it accepted?

Not really, but

1) there’s no implied warranty of merchantability with the hobbyist system

2) the “business model” (such as it is) of open source doesn’t push distros to hide security updates behind a pathway

3) generally Linux is usually getting better so I want to update anyway

I mean... people do it with Android phones all the time.