Proof that software as service/cloud based, will never work for long term ...

[SilverSolder]

Spiraling debt is an integral part of our current economic system, and we are currently witnessing how it ends up like.

The requirement for continued growth is based on the fact that the current system requires there is always more debt than money in circulation.  To pay for the debt, growth is absolutely required, or the system fails.

When one truly understands how the current worldwide financial system constructs fiat money based on debt owed to private central banks, one tends to not want to live on this planet anymore.
It really is only a step forward from slavery; peonage or debt bondage, to be specific. 

What really gets me is how so many voluntarily jump into the jaws of debt, overpaying for their house, car, education, healthcare, vacations, etc etc etc. -- instead of attempting to at least be partly "free" by keeping some of their income back for themselves.

Maybe the psychological trap is that it can make you feel really important when you get a big credit line at the bank, or at the car dealership, or whatever?

[SilverSolder]

Spiraling debt is an integral part of our current economic system, and we are currently witnessing how it ends up like.

The requirement for continued growth is based on the fact that the current system requires there is always more debt than money in circulation.  To pay for the debt, growth is absolutely required, or the system fails.

When one truly understands how the current worldwide financial system constructs fiat money based on debt owed to private central banks, one tends to not want to live on this planet anymore.
It really is only a step forward from slavery; peonage or debt bondage, to be specific. 

Do you have a better alternative that provides an amount of money that matches the size of the economy and allows to have enough control to keep inflation at around 2%?

My working theory is that money is nothing more than a representation of an amount of work. With more people around the world working to create better lives for themselves, I don't see how this system can fail in the next 500 years. And central banks do have ways to make the amount of money in circulation to become less or more.

Money is also a store of value, and that is the side of its nature that creates the big wealth gaps.

[SilverSolder]

[...] They cannot reduce the amount of money in circulation at all.  They can only make more money out of nothing, and create more debt by lending money to governments.  Governments can reduce the amount of money in circulation in the future by borrowing less, but central banks oppose that because it means they profit less from the interest.

They can change the amount in circulation, e.g. quantitative easing/tightening.

[PlainName]

New one is Steam: https://help.steampowered.com/en/faqs/view/4784-4F2B-1321-800A

I guess most will just shrug and say "Windows 7..." but it's a bit off for a marketplace (think Amazon or Ebay) to enforce a hardware/OS upgrade just to keep access to already paid for products. The games themselves would work fine, and with the existing Steam client, but Steam are saying that because they use Googles browser, and that won't support W7 (shades of Kicad and Python) they can't possible just let it go and if it works it works, otherwise it doesn't. No, they have to actively stop you accessing your games.

[SiliconWizard]

The end of support for some platforms (such as Win 7) has definitely been some kind of domino effect.

Sure some software products end the support just to make things easier for them (it's one platform less on which to test), but many just end the support because they are depending on other software pieces that themselves ended the support, so they don't have a choice. It's a cascade. It's happening with anything using Chromium, but has also happened with anything using Python. And so on.

While on some level one could say that it's a normal process, software has to be updated, security concerns, blah blah blah... it poses an issue that very few seem to be concerned about, even less so trying to address: planned obsolescence. While most people seem infuriated at the thought of planned obsolescence for hardware, when it comes to software, suddenly there's no one around. But software is everywhere these days and an increasing number of products can't work without it.

In other words, software is creating an endless planned obsolescence almost by nature, and we all have to be fine with it, as there is no solution to that. Apparently.

TLDR: it's really bad when a product becomes obsolete because it contains some hardware parts that can fail and have no replacement, but it's all fine if the included software makes it obsolete. Apparently.
 

[alm]

The end of support for some platforms (such as Win 7) has definitely been some kind of domino effect.

Domino effect in more applications stopping support for Windows 7, and hence declining market share of Windows 7, sure. But what is the effect of this other than forcing a free Windows 7 to 10 upgrade? Is there that much hardware out there that can run Windows 7 but not Windows 10? Is there much hardware with drivers for Windows 7 but not Windows 10? I thought the driver models were very similar, unlike for example Windows XP to Vista.

While on some level one could say that it's a normal process, software has to be updated, security concerns, blah blah blah... it poses an issue that very few seem to be concerned about, even less so trying to address: planned obsolescence. While most people seem infuriated at the thought of planned obsolescence for hardware, when it comes to software, suddenly there's no one around. But software is everywhere these days and an increasing number of products can't work without it.

What software are you talking about that's becoming obsolete? Old versions of Chrome, Python, Kicad etc will keep working on your old OS. I don't see encouraging an OS update once the manufacturer stops security updates as a bad thing.

TLDR: it's really bad when a product becomes obsolete because it contains some hardware parts that can fail and have no replacement, but it's all fine if the included software makes it obsolete. Apparently.
 

What product are you talking here? Windows? I don't see one set of bits being replaced by another set of bits as being bad for the environment, unless say replacing a washing machine by a new washing machine. If you're talking about embedded software platforms like a scope with Windows, well, the scope will keep functioning fine. Why would you run Chrome or Kicad on a scope?

[PlainName]

it poses an issue that very few seem to be concerned about, even less so trying to address: planned obsolescence

Yes. And those saying, well, we have to move with the times, neglect to consider that their current OS or whatever is going to go the same way in a couple of years. Just as you get really intimate and know something, it's obsolete and you have to start all over again.

Doesn't matter if the stuff still works (software doesn't wear out, after all), you will be forced to not use one way or another.

[PlainName]

what is the effect of this other than forcing a free Windows 7 to 10 upgrade

That's the main issue. Windows 10 is shit. If I didn't mind it I would have moved to it way before now. But it's an ongoing advertorial for Microsoft which changes things out of your control, bluescreens because Microsoft don't have a QA department now and get the users to test stuff. And the very same thing has happened to W10 in that W11 is not the OS 'of choice'. That will, of course, remain just until they can dispose of W10 and then we'll be dragged onto W12.

My MythTV setup is stupidly old. Still works just great; records what I want, gets program listings online, plays the stuff as it should. Why would I want to update it? But according to the likes of Microsoft and Google, I can't be allowed to use it because no-one supports it any more, despite it working perfectly well. I don't want support; I want them to keep their broken updates well away from it.

[alm]

Yes. And those saying, well, we have to move with the times, neglect to consider that their current OS or whatever is going to go the same way in a couple of years. Just as you get really intimate and know something, it's obsolete and you have to start all over again.

I'd argue this is becoming less of a problem since operating systems like Windows 10/11 and some Linux distributions are moving towards a rolling release model of a continuous stream of incremental updates, so there is no big change of having to start over again. I update my Ubuntu installation roughly every six months, and the update rarely has any big impact on my work and I can't remember the last time it broke any application software.

That's the main issue. Windows 10 is shit. If I didn't mind it I would have moved to it way before now. But it's an ongoing advertorial for Microsoft which changes things out of your control, bluescreens because Microsoft don't have a QA department now and get the users to test stuff. And the very same thing has happened to W10 in that W11 is not the OS 'of choice'. That will, of course, remain just until they can dispose of W10 and then we'll be dragged onto W12.

My MythTV setup is stupidly old. Still works just great; records what I want, gets program listings online, plays the stuff as it should. Why would I want to update it? But according to the likes of Microsoft and Google, I can't be allowed to use it because no-one supports it any more, despite it working perfectly well. I don't want support; I want them to keep their broken updates well away from it.

Of course you may not like the way a particular OS is changing into, but then you'll have to pick your poison and switch. I don't think that sticking to an obsolete desktop OS is a very viable solution. I remember people saying that Windows 7 was bad, so they stuck to Windows XP. Before that Windows XP was bad, and they'd stick to Windows 2000. Before that Windows '95 was bad, and they stuck to DOS. How many are still using DOS/Windows 2000/Windows XP? A very dedicated 'embedded' application like MythTV is a different matter, of course, especially if not connected to the network.

[PlainName]

a rolling release model of a continuous stream of incremental updates

That's a major part of the problem. The bloody thing changes under your feet on their whim. Turn it on one day and there's some new 'feature' getting in the way, or something you're used to doesn't work like that now.

My setup is quite heavily customised; it is very personal to me. Stuff on disk is where it makes sense to me, not Microsoft. The desktop looks the way it does because that's how I prefer it, not because Microsoft think I'd appreciate some new nicknack or in-your-face application. The start menu (remember that?) is organised so I can use it to find and start stuff quickly and easily. Etc.

A rolling update would make a mockery of that, and as a result I would just give up customising it. I would no longer care about the shitty thing because it wouldn't be 'mine' and I would hate to have to use it.

[PlainName]

I don't think that sticking to an obsolete desktop OS is a very viable solution

Why not? Because I wouldn't get the latest gewgaws?

[rdl]

The problem I have is just that games I paid for may become unusable. Unless Steam provides some kind of mini-app (no browser required) or unlocks the games completely, I think some kind of legal action will happen. I also think I will be looking to get pirated versions of games I own only on Steam so I can still play them. Surprisingly, many games don't require Steam just to play, even though they may have been purchased through Steam. Even Valve's Half-Life 2 will run without Steam sniffing your butt in the background.

In recent years I've moved over to GOG for games, haven't really spent much money on Steam. As a matter of fact, I have spent money to buy games on GOG that I already own on Steam just to be free of that obnoxious Steaming pile of crap.

[PlainName]

I liked Steam because of the offline storage. GoG can do that too,  but somehow I always felt they might disappear, and after downloading some huge stuff I figured I didn't have enough storage to manage that. Steam also update the games much easier.

Which is not to mention that some games I got on GoG are now Steam-only. Train Valley, for instance, was GOG but the German DLC needed Steam. TV2 is also Steam, but horrible so I don't care about that one

[rdl]

I guess by "offline storage" you mean how you can just install directly from the service? Like GOG Galaxy? Personally I don't really use that much. And Steam forces updates, something you don't always want. They're like Microsoft with that "We know better than you what you need" attitude.

Games are big these days and need lots of disk space, and as you say these services may disappear someday. The games I really care about I download the offline installers from GOG, though I can understand not everybody has space for that.

[PlainName]

Well, not Galaxy per se because you can drop into the webby and download them like that. Never installed Galaxy, don't see a need to.

[NiHaoMike]

The games I really care about I download the offline installers from GOG, though I can understand not everybody has space for that.

With storage becoming cheaper every day, that's becoming less and less of an issue.

[PlainName]

Kind of. Over the years I've found the only reliable backup is a live one. Shove stuff on a CD or disk or paper or whatever and it will get lost in a drawer, down the back of the sofa, overwritten, eaten by mice, or just not work when you come to look at it 10 years later. Having it exist in a live system, OTOH, means you know where it is and that it is still 'alive' (and backed up to the usual backup media).

Just had this, as it happens. Uncovered a box of Syquest Ezidrve cartridges used for backup. Don't have a drive any more, and if I did I don't have SCSI any more. They might as well be cheese on toast (except they hurt your teeth more).

So... storage is cheap, but expanding your backups to maintain that storage is a pain in the arse and expensive.

[madires]

Trusting an online backup can cause havoc too. There already have been a few incidents with cloud backup/storage services loosing data, e.g. t-online/Microsoft SAN fail. Managing backup is not hard, just follow a few reasonable recommendations:
- make multiple backups (in case one media fails )
- if data is really important keep a backup somewhere else (cloud, relative)
- keep bakups of different timelines (can be combined: use two USB disks and swap them every few weeks)
- check backups (also train to restore them)
- after x years migrate old backups to current disks/tapes/whatever

[PlainName]

I think you misunderstand (or I neglected to explain properly). By 'live' I mean living on a working system that's in use. I said it is "(and backed up to the usual backup media)", so the live system is backed up to whatever is the norm, which should be multiple backups, offline if you prefer (and by online/offline I am not referring to a cloud). Thus the stuff that would be a risk of getting lost/eaten/decayed/etc must continue to exist as much as the 'important' current stuff does.

And, hence, why the storage cost is not a simple 1:1 of however big the data is, but 1:n where n is the number of storage devices used for backup (and original).

[alm]

Why not? Because I wouldn't get the latest gewgaws?

Other than the obvious lack of security updates for both the OS and applications like Chrome? Because unlike some embedded appliances, a desktop system does not exist in a vacuum and most users use external services (e.g. Steam), websites like YouTube that continuously upgrade the codecs they use for newer browser versions, or exchange files with other users (e.g. Kicad). This will make life on an OS with decreasing application support harder and harder, eventually forcing an upgrade. This upgrade to Windows 13 or whatever will be more painful than incremental, small upgrades.

If you don't like Windows 10, then I don't think you're going to like Windows 12 or 13 either. So you'll either have to swallow those objections against newer Windows versions, or switch to another OS like MacOS, one of the various Linux flavours or something else like FreeBSD. And if you'll be forced to transition to another (version) of the OS within a couple of years anyhow, then I think it's better to bite the bullet now rather than postpone it and make your life difficult in the mean time.

[PlainName]

I think it's better to bite the bullet now rather than postpone it and make your life difficult in the mean time

That's entirely your choice. I should be entitled to mine.

If you don't like Windows 10, then I don't think you're going to like Windows 12 or 13 either

Quite likely, but Microsoft have done about faces before (W98, Vista, 8, WfW, etc). Maybe they'll have changed for the better in a couple more years. And don't forget that W10 was supposed to be the last ever version of Windows, but we now have 11 and more on the way.

[alm]

I think it's better to bite the bullet now rather than postpone it and make your life difficult in the mean time

That's entirely your choice. I should be entitled to mine.

You asked why I don't think that sticking to an obsolete desktop OS is a very viable solution. If this is your answer to me explaining my opinion, then good luck with your crusade against the windmills!

[PlainName]

Actually, I asked why I shouldn't be sticking with it, not you.

[madires]

Amazon discontinues Halo: https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/amazon-halo-discontinued

[SilverSolder]

The end of support for some platforms (such as Win 7) has definitely been some kind of domino effect.

Sure some software products end the support just to make things easier for them (it's one platform less on which to test), but many just end the support because they are depending on other software pieces that themselves ended the support, so they don't have a choice. It's a cascade. It's happening with anything using Chromium, but has also happened with anything using Python. And so on.

While on some level one could say that it's a normal process, software has to be updated, security concerns, blah blah blah... it poses an issue that very few seem to be concerned about, even less so trying to address: planned obsolescence. While most people seem infuriated at the thought of planned obsolescence for hardware, when it comes to software, suddenly there's no one around. But software is everywhere these days and an increasing number of products can't work without it.

In other words, software is creating an endless planned obsolescence almost by nature, and we all have to be fine with it, as there is no solution to that. Apparently.

TLDR: it's really bad when a product becomes obsolete because it contains some hardware parts that can fail and have no replacement, but it's all fine if the included software makes it obsolete. Apparently.
 

This is happening in the auto industry...   e.g. the map software is arbitrarily no longer supported in my 12 year old car, even though the same model was made for several more years, based on the argument that "it is supported for 10 years, that's it"

Also, embedded controllers in cars are increasingly "protected" so they are more difficult to recycle into other cars...   sometimes requiring special equipment that only dealers have access to, to unlock them.

There is definitely a growing dark shadow being cast by "fake obsolescence" implemented via software...