There’s lots of equipment that can’t accept certificates automatically. If they can, it might be in a closed off way that’s difficult to impossible to reverse engineer. If you can, that’s still a lot of skill and labor, which drives up the cost. They also might find out that it would be insecure to do it automatically.

It’s more of an issue when it’s every 90 days. Even worse is the labor cost to replace the certificate on everything that needs it every 90 days.

It is an enterprise thing, yes.

For that particular booster, sure. For boosters in general, not really.

Yeah, it seems really restrained for someone who has to end a project they’ve put so much effort into.

Could be a trade-off issue. They can get capacity or speed but not both yet.

In a way they were, but then my version stopped receiving updates and version 2 came out and they wanted me to buy version 2.

That’s… how it works? Surely you can’t expect ongoing, infinite development without paying an ongoing cost. Eventually the current version will become the old version, and stop receiving updates.

I’ve seen this take before, and it’s always been bad.

Back when perpetual licenses were normal - yeah, you could always install that software from the CD or whatever and input your key and activate it. As long as you were running it on a supported OS, it worked. Most of the time you’d get updates for a while, for the most popular software at least, but not always.

Then eventually, everyone who was going to buy it had bought it, mostly. The money stopped rolling in, and no one’s going to make updates for free. So updates stopped.

Over time, it would just become not as good. It didn’t change, the world around it did. New security vulnerabilities would be found, or the OS would update and it wouldn’t be compatible anymore. Sure you could run the old OS, and it would work how it always had. But then vulnerabilities in the old OS would show up, or the newer OS would have a feature you want, or not be compatible with newer software you also want to run. It wouldn’t be feasible to run that old software anymore.

That doesn’t mean that the company didn’t fulfill their promise. A perpetual license you bought, and a perpetual license you got. Office 2003 still runs on Windows XP. But neither of them are secure anymore, and besides, 2003 is missing a ton of features.

So they publish the next major version. It has new features (Office 2007 introduced docx, the ribbon, and SharePoint), and will get security updates while it’s supported. People buy it and use it for a while, then the same thing happens as Office 2003. It ages, and goes to the wayside. People start buying Office 2010.

Eventually, the world speeds up. The Internet becomes faster and more reliable. Updates can happen faster and more consistently. People begin to expect updates for longer. The companies decide the best way to respond is to shorten the cycle. Instead of paying a large sum every few years for the latest version, they’ll pay a small sum every month. Instead of major updates with new features every few years and only bug fixes or security patches in between, will trickle out new features as they finish along with security updates.

The thing is - the pricing hasn’t actually changed that much. The only difference is that the cycle is smaller, and some people are just now realizing that there has always been a cycle.

CNET posted an article in 2006 with Office 2007 pricing, putting the Home edition at $150. That’s $233 now. That’s about 3 years, 4 months of Office 365 Personal ($70/year).

3 years after Office 2007 came out, Office 2010 was released. Do you see what I’m getting at? The cost you paid for 2007, in terms of a modern subscription cost, is the same as the time between the two major versions back then.

Sure, you could run it until 2017 with security updates if you were frugal, but trust me it looks pretty goofy to run Office 2007 on Windows 10. And besides, most people didn’t. They bought their Windows Vista computer and bought Office 2007 with it at the Best Buy. When they bought their Windows 7 computer at that same Best Buy 3 years later, they bought Office 2010 to go with it.

So really, the license was perpetual, sure. But the software lifetime was never infinite, and people that act like they got cheated on their perpetual license because of that are foolish. The only thing that has changed is the length of the cycle. It went from paying every 3 years and getting major updates every 3 years to having money trickle out and features trickle in.

I know this is a controversial take here, but I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. It just makes it more obvious how much you’re spending, because you’re paying more often, which some people don’t like.

Nah, those get their own, unique set of security issues, discovered or otherwise. Hint: every firmware does.

The thing is that it’s the best they can do, which is about all we can ask for. No one is going to do a good job at the investigation for free.

Part of it is that Vine was a little too early. Phone screens were smaller, and people weren’t used to watching videos on their phone as much as they do today.

I’m thinking they used the same BIOS password for all of them.

I hope they use unique, random passwords for each device this time. Not that I’m rooting for Corrections, but this is educational time that’s being lost

Idk but I wouldn’t risk it when it’s easy to encrypt stuff. Good security is done in layers.

What about a torrent? You’ll have to encrypt with 7zip or something to keep it secure, but that and qbitorrent will do the trick.

doesn’t allow you to do anything you can’t do without it.

That’s false. It allows you to not need a password to unlock the volume at boot.

Im really confused why people think TPM needs to be involved in anyway when using LUKS.

Because it’s convenient

The disk will be decrypted on boot, but then they’ll have to contend with needing a password to log in

I explained this in another thread. They’re ending sale of perpetual license. They’re not breaking ones they’ve already sold. That being said, eventually the version that perpetual licenses were sold for will stop getting updates and they’ll become a security risk. That was always the lifecycle for perpetual licenses, though.

You won’t be able to upgrade to new versions when the support contract runs out, but you can install updates to the existing version as long as updates are made for it. This has always been the lifecycle for perpetual licensing. It’s good forever, but at a certain point it becomes a security risk to continue using. The difference here is they won’t sell you another perpetual license when the lifecycle is up.

They’re terminating in the sense that they won’t sell it anymore. They’re not breaking the licensing they’ve already sold (mostly, there was some fuckery with activating licensing they sold through third parties)