It seems that a root problem is not the proprietary OS, but the proprietary and abandoned drivers, hardware management tools, and patient record systems the obsolete OS is required to support.

Open source might be part of the answer to this, or some kind of legal 'right to migrate'.

If all of your patient records are in some ancient software, the new vendor would probably be happy to get them out again if there were documents or a codebase saying how.

If you need XP to run ExpensiveScannerManager95, if you had a legal right to get the code somehow, I'm sure you could find you an SME that would port the driver to windows 10.

Maybe we / our companies and governments need these legal rights now. But what exactly should they be?

> Open source might be part of the answer to this, or some kind of legal 'right to migrate'.

It isn't. Everyone who tried to decide over which version of a distribution to run should know this. It's fine as long as you run the newest or don't need new things. But once you need something specific and especially once you start installing things outside the package manager things go down hill quickly.

I wish people wouldn't use this argument in favor of open source, because if you make institutions choose between open source and proprietary solutions based on "updates" it's appstores, cloud software and subscriptions that will win.

>>Everyone who tried to decide over which version of a distribution to run should know this

I have used Linux as my primary operating system for more than 15 years, I have been using Arch as my primary distribution for more than 5 years. I do not know this.

>t's fine as long as you run the newest or don't need new things.

So which is it, I am fine if I want to run the newest, or if a do not need the newest? Your statement is a contradiction

>But once you need something specific and especially once you start installing things outside the package manager things go down hill quickly.

No, not really... I install things all the time outside the Package manager, of course I know what I am doing so...

>because if you make institutions choose between open source and proprietary solutions based on "updates" it's appstores, cloud software and subscriptions that will win.

How so? App stores to not solve the Lockin problem the OP is talking about, if anything it makes it worse

It's not very appealing to respond when you don't give any reasons. I work with making and maintaining Linux distributions for enterprise, and previously embedded, systems (including desktop). We commission open source work, buy 'support' from major vendors and upstream our own changes. I don't share your views and judging by the development in things like e.g. configuration management I don't think I'm alone.

> So which is it, I am fine if I want to run the newest, or if a do not need the newest? Your statement is a contradiction

I don't see the contradiction, maybe I didn't express myself very well. The problem is when you mix old and new software and distributions. As long as you run a single release (old or new) and all software is for that release you're fine. When you have to deal with many different versions of third party software, libraries, interpreters, shells, build systems etc. is when you run into problems. Just like in the case with "ExpensiveScannerManager95".

>>I don't share your views and judging by the development in things like e.g. configuration management I don't think I'm alone.

How does the development of Configuration Management tools for linux support any of your statements? I fail to see the connection. Linux has needed enterprise configuration management tools for awhile, it is one area where Windows is better as there are many many many many Configuration Management tools for Windows.

>>maybe I didn't express myself very well.

I think this is true, because I still do not understand

1. What you are really system 2. Why you believe windows is better at any of these things than linux 3. How it is relevant to what we are talking about.

Yes when you mix old and new things you may have problems, depending on the system. I however maintain you have LESS problems with linux than you do with Windows, having managed both systems in large enterprise environment, Windows is a finicky broken system that does not play well with anything.

I spend the majority of my time fixing broken shit on windows. The idea that Linux is worse is laughable

While I agree open source is the answer, linux as it stands isn't -- which we can see from the mess which is abandonded and un-upgradable Android phones. I'm not saying it's Linux's fault, but it certainly hasn't proved to be a magic solution either.

In case with Android things like drivers or builtin software are often closed source and it prevents community from fixing them or migrating them to newer Android versions.

While these attacks are not impossible on linux/bsd there are inherent weaknesses in design of Windows, Especially Windows XP/2003 that make these attacks more probable

Also due to the nature of Linux being a Monolithic Kernel and open source, there tends to be less issue with backward compatibility issues with Linux making it easier to update systems that today companies refuse to update windows on because it is not compatible with older hardware/software

Infact Linux often has the reverse problem in that hardware support for new technology often lags behind because hardware vendors focus on Windows first.

One argument for Linux here is that people in the know could have patched it themselves and recompiled the kernel or userland utility causing the problem. Or people after the fact, without having to wait for Microsoft. With Windows, you get what you're given, when they want to provide it (essentially).