Okay so the 2015 EOL ones, yeah I can understand telling the customer to update their shit. They shouldn't have to support nearly 10 year out of date stuff.
May 2024 EOL ones? Bruh. C'mon now.
this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
744 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
59651 readers
2640 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I would love to know when they stopped selling it compared to the EOL. EOL should be at least 5 years past the last time the models were shipped out, maybe more. So if May 2024 was EOL I sure hope they weren't selling them after 2018.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The DSR-150 is still being sold on Amazon under the D-Link store. Why the hell would you end of life something you still sell.
Don't want to get lumbered with a bunch of old stock now, do you?
load more comments
(5 replies)
I mean, some of those EOLed nearly a decade ago.
You can argue over what a reasonable EOL is, but all hardware is going to EOL at some point, and at that point, it isn't going to keep getting updates.
Throw enough money at a vendor, and I'm sure that you can get extended support contracts that will keep it going for however long people are willing to keep chucking money at a vendor -- some businesses pay for support on truly ancient hardware -- but this is a consumer broadband router. It's unlikely to make a lot of sense to do so on this -- the hardware isn't worth much, nor is it going to be terribly expensive to replace, and especially if you're using the wireless functionality, you probably want support for newer WiFi standards anyway that updated hardware will bring.
I do think that there's maybe a good argument that EOLing hardware should be handled in a better way. Like, maybe hardware should ship with an EOL sticker, so that someone can glance at hardware and see if it's "expired". Or maybe network hardware should have some sort of way of reporting EOL in response to a network query, so that someone can audit a network for EOLed hardware.
But EOLing hardware is gonna happen.
all hardware is going to EOL at some point, and at that point, it isn't going to keep getting updates
EOLing hardware should be handled in a better way
Both of these are solved by one thing: open platforms. If I can flash OpenWRT on to an older router then it becomes useful again.
Bingo.
Either support the device until the heat death of the universe, or provide consumers with the access to maintain it themselves.
But neither of those help corporations make them all the money. So we need regulation to force them to.
load more comments
(3 replies)
This is the correct reaction to old home equipment.
Right?
Something this old is going to be power inefficient compared to newer stuff, and simply not perform as well.
I would know, I just booted up a 10 year old consumer router last night, because the current one died. It'll be OK for a few days until I can get a replacement. Boy, is this thing slow.
load more comments
(3 replies)
I think there should be a handoff procedure, or whatever you want to call it.
As EOL approaches, work with whatever open router OS maker is available (currently OpenWRT) to make sure it's supported, and configs migrate over nicely. Then drop one last update, designed to do a full OS replacement.
Boom, handoff complete.
I’d support a regulation that defines either an expiration date or commitment to open source at the time the hardware is sold.
EoL of anything should mean open source code. You don't want to open source your code? Then you must keep servicing your products and must keep your servers up
load more comments
(1 replies)
I can still use a 2003 AMD Opteron with the newest builds of Linux. It's an open standard. As long as the hardware still physically works. The only reason these pieces of hardware are EOL is because they chose to lock them down.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Be nice if companies had to open source firmware they are going to EoL.
Be nice?
It must become.law. we want to lower e-waste? Yen if companies stop supporting their products, het must open source all of it
I mean, be nice if the US didn't turn into a dictatorship in a few months. Don't see any company-unfriendly laws going in effect there any time soon. But perhaps in Europe there's still some chance of this happening.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Not going to hold my breath that anything like this will happen in the current political climate, but yeah, that should be mandatory. Even ignoring the exploitive nature towards their customers, it creates a ton of unnecessary waste.
Exactly. As a consumer, when I buy a product, I'm not just buying the state of things at the time, I'm buying with an expectation of ongoing support. If they choose to not support it themselves, I should be able to support it myself.
In the old days, hardware came with schematics, so when the manufacturer warranty ended, customers could repair things themselves. That should extend to software as well, since software is just as much a part of the functioning of a device as capacitors and whatnot.
Long ago, D-Link was good but then they sold the company. Just like Alienware, Farbreware, Oaklies, etc.
load more comments
(4 replies)
there should be list of companies that should be avoided and why, its impossible to keep track of everything like this
An idea for an app I came up with for a class once was one that let you scan a barcode of a product in like Walmart and get what parent company owns it, like how Nestle doesn't like to put their name on companies they bought (or not in big text anyways).
So if you want to avoid Coca Cola you could scan it and see who it's owned by and if that company matches one of the ones you have blacklisted
Fun fact, 'peace tea' is owned by coca cola
There's an app called 'buycott' that does exactly that!
load more comments
(1 replies)
Our shit sucks. Buy more lol
a new non dlink router. Since the should be named f-link for a number of reasons.
Can highly recommend ASUS, most of their models can be flashed with custom firmware that is supported beyond EOL. And their EOL cycle is also pretty long.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I mean this is pretty standard in all industries regardless of whether it's a software flaw or a physical flaw in any other kind of product. What's the likelihood of a vacuum manufacturer replacing a part in a 15 year old product that had a 1 year warrantee even if it's a safety issue? Sure the delivery and installation is cheaper with software, but the engineering and development isn't, especially if the environment for building it has to be recreated.
I work for a manufacturer with part catalogues going back to 1921, and while the telegraph codes no longer work, you could absolutely still order up a given part, or request from us the engineering diagram for it to aid in fabricating a replacement. You can also request service manuals, wiring diagrams, etc. Don't all half-decent manufacturers do this?
Don't all half-decent manufacturers do this?
No. That is phenomenally uncommon. To the point it's almost unheard of.
Yes they do, but half decent manufacturers are extremely rare.
load more comments
(10 replies)
What you're saying is perfectly reasonable, but also doesn't apply here because they're still selling this router new on the D-link Amazon store.
If you're going to stop supporting a product, you should also stop selling it.
load more comments
(3 replies)
This is why a number of countries have laws saying spare parts must be made available for a number of years past being sold. Well beyond what the warranty is.
How is this significantly different?
load more comments
(10 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›