[scribus] scribus Digest, Vol 95, Issue 10

[Craig Bradney]

> On 12 Feb 2016, at 21:36, JLuc <jluc at no-log.org> wrote:
> 
> Le 12/02/2016 17:35, Craig Bradney a écrit :
>>> I was all the more interested since it is also an ecological issue,
>>> because new versions require more powerfull hardware very often.
>> I'd be very interested to see what those ethical or ecological arguments are.
> > Long term release are typically about providing a more stable environment for companies or server operations.
> 
> Do i really need to explain that ?
> Maybe you didnt read that sentence :
> "new [software versions] versions require more powerfull hardware very often."
> Not clear enough ?


Nope, not clear enough. I think thats mostly rubbish. In some cases, its clearly the truth, but because they can do more, people want more. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with LTS or whatever some platform/software calls their long term release. Its about stability.

> 
> Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence
> 
> Everyday, the fear of security flaws drive Windows XP users to upgrade
> when most of them is perfectly happy with their old OS - except malwares...
> With a newer OS, many complain how slow and sluggish their computer has become ?
> /me thinks of his mother...
> They have no choice but to change computer.

That’s also pretty false. Windows 10 runs perfectly well on a machine that ran Windows 7. XP ran on a Win 2000 machine just fine. Any of those machines will run Linux. That does not mean that you get the latest capabilities from the software though.
The fear of malware is entirely real and most people do not care or do not understand the threat. Run XP, and there are very very high probabilities that your data is not safe. Simple. Same for older versions of OSX or Linux etc etc. Feel free to share your personal, banking and other data with those that want it.


> 
> Versions numbers increase, provide new features, and when this is not cared carefully, they require new hardware, eat bigger natural ressources, induce more waste.
> That's why generaly speaking, reducing the lifespan of hardware is not ecological.
> (that sounds obvious, he ! but i try to answer your question)
> 
> As for energy, sometime changing computer reduces the power consumption, when switching from an old desktop to a "green" laptop, but even so, most of the time the "grey energy" loss (required for ressources extraction and manufacturing and seller's shipping) is bigger than the energy gain during the life span. These are complex calculations that you can probably find on specialised site, in case common sense is not enough.
> 
> Anyway, free software aims to empower the user and give him freedom and choice.
> The choice of not changing computer is worth being preciously cared for.

However that choice is also to freely run some old version of the software. That does not mean we have to support old OSes and old libraries forever. We will also immediately require later versions of our libraries if older ones are considered insecure. Simple.

Craig