The increased update timelines by Google, Samsung and others roughly coincided with EU legislation coming into effect that mandates 5 years of updates after end of sales. We'll see.
Correction: if the manufacturer chooses to provide updates, and they don't have to, they must continue to make those updates available for five years after end of sales.
In other words, manufacturers aren't required to publish updates at all, but if they do provide updates they have to make them available to users for five years after they stop sales. This only stops the case where a manufacturer ships a device and publishes updates for the device, but then takes those updates offline after they stop selling the device (but before 5 years is up).
Google promised their Nexus phones would get new versions of Android for X years then, after selling a bunch of them, just changed their mind.
I'm having a hard time googling it since every result that comes up is about Google cancelling Nexus phones entirely way back when, but I remember a lot of Nexus users were kind of PO'ed about it.
I think we need to change our perspective of what success is. I believe there will be a ton of small companies popping up instead of a few big ones that eats everyone's lunch. Like Google, Microsoft and others giants have done until now.
What is there to be studied? Once a company is acquired you bounce. There is usually a two year grace period before you start feeling the pain as a customer, which should give you the time to migrate.
Yes, and I think we're already seeing that in the general trend of recent linux work toward atomic updates. [bootc](https://developers.redhat.com/articles/2024/09/24/bootc-gett...) based images are getting a ton of traction. [universal blue](https://universal-blue.org/) is probably a better brochure example of how bootc can make systems more resilient without needing to move to declarative nix for the entire system like you do in NixOS. Every "upgrade" is a container deployment, and you can roll back or forward to new images at any time. Parts of the filesystem aren't writeable (which pisses people off who don't understand the benefit) but the advantages for security (isolating more stuff to user space by necessity) and stability (wedged upgrades are almost always recoverable) are totally worth it.
On the user side, I could easily see [systemd-homed](https://fedoramagazine.org/unlocking-the-future-of-user-mana...) evolving into a system that allows snapshotting/roll forward/roll back on encrypted backups of your home dir that can be mounted using systemd-homed to interface with the system for UID/GID etc.
These are just two projects that I happen to be interested in at the moment - there's a pretty big groundswell in Linux atm toward a model that resembles (and honestly even exceeds) what NixOS does in terms of recoverability on upgrade.
Or rather ZFS/BTRFS/BchachFS. Before doing anything big I make snapshot, saved me recently when a huge Immich import created a mess, `zfs rollback /home/me@2026-01-12`... And it's like nothing ever happened.
reply