win95/98/ME and printers. An ethics issue comparable to DRM servers or not?

[Leo Mauler]

--- On Wed, 7/30/08, Christofer C. Bell 
<christofer.c.bell at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 12:35 AM, Leo Mauler
> <webgiant at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > --- On Sun, 7/27/08, Christofer C. Bell
> <christofer.c.bell at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Is it your contention that vendors should support
> > > a given software release forever?  If so, what is
> > > your plan to ensure that free software developers
> > > start supporting every past release of their
> > > software?  If you're not holding OSS developers 
> > > to that standard, why are you holding commercial
> > > developers to it?
> >
> > Over here we have the real apples and oranges, sadly
> > you're the one making that particular kind of 
> > comparison.  OSS means support is *nice* but not
> > necessary, because anyone can step in and support 
> > the software, or maintain and improve it themselves.
> > Closed-source means support is *necessary* or the 
> > software eventually becomes little more than garbage 
> > bits on a hard drive.
> 
> Leo, I get what you're saying, but in the real world,
> no one is running Slackware 2.0 (what I started with 
> in 1994).  The software world, even the open source 
> software world, does eventually move on. The point of 
> open source licenses is to encourage a community effort 
> to improve the state of the art.  Maintaining extremely 
> old software, even open source software, devolves into 
> a futile individual effort.  Everyone else moves on.

Chris, I don't think you get what I'm saying.  There's a difference between what you are saying, maintenance, and what I was saying, which is "don't deny access to existing already-created drivers."

By your reasoning every single file associated with Slackware 2.0 needs to be hunted down and *destroyed* so that no one can ever use it again (a rough translation of your statement "in the real world, no one is running Slackware 2.0...everyone else moves on").  I'm not saying "write me drivers so Slackware 2.0 can use USB," I'm saying let me use Slackware 2.0 *as it was in 1994*, right now if I want to.

And the fact is that just because software is old doesn't mean it is completely obsolete, it just means it is *old*.  Solutions aren't dependent on the latest and greatest, they are dependent on what *works*.  I've got an inkjet printer which can do photographs, but that doesn't mean that a pencil and paper, archaic technology, don't have their uses in a modern society (such as now, as the printer is out of ink).

What HP is doing isn't refusing to maintain their printers, it is actively choosing not to provide, even on an "as-is, don't expect support" fashion, *existing* drivers.  Drivers which require no work to create, because they were already here.  Drivers which require no work to distribute, because they were already available on the HP website.  They've just (metaphorically speaking) tracked down and *destroyed* every CD and floppy collection of Slackware 7.1 (current as of 1998).

I have a very old Pentium I laptop still running that same "10-year-old OS", namely Slackware 7.1.  The laptop won't run anything better as it only has a floppy drive and no CD drive (not even a USB port).  What the laptop does do is manage all my recipes in my kitchen, and allows me to write essays or thoughts, or play simple games, while the bread is rising or the water is getting ready to boil.  An old wired Ethernet card does a nice job of connecting me to the basement server and very basic Internet connectivity.  Fact is that I wouldn't want to risk a $1000+ laptop right next to the stove, and don't have the space for a bulky tower case and monitor.  

Sometimes older is a *better choice* than newer.