Debian's whole model is "its not old its stable".
Who cares? It's not germane to the discussion. You want developers to piece meal out features to you (IE - modularized software) vs. pushing you into a support contract with upgrades.
I am open to learning, but you have to explain to me why what I am requesting is archaic.
You're asking businesses to adhere to your business model, and is a pain in the ass from a development point of view (dependency check all the things), a support point of view (weird edge case configurations that may has issues that aren't properly tested because a company doesn't have the time to devote to QAing every possible configuration) and from a business point of view (Feast or famine cash flow issues).
The most common times you see what you'd like are in things like really large monolithic systems like ERP systems, or accounting systems where feature sets have dedicated development teams or worse -- companies are acquired and features are bolted on and sort of work for a couple of revisions until developers have enough time to properly integrate the disparate systems. OR you end up with software that does a couple of things really well and the rest is shit, so you end up having to use one system for one thing, and then purchase another solution to fill your needs.
Windows Server has typically been a one time payment.
No, it hasn't. Windows Server has had software assurance for what, 15 years now (I don't remember if it started with Windows Server 2000 or 2003)? Windows Server has had the option to purchase individually, but Microsoft really pushes SA for any business customer.
I believe that your endorsement is not only DANGEROUS, to our industry at large, but foolhardy in pointing your business in the right direction.
SaaS is a thing. It's been a thing for decades. It's not going anywhere. It's not dangerous. It just is what it is. It's becoming more of a thing because it's much easier for all parties to deal with. I buy access and grow as my business grows. You provide all the infrastructure to run it and manage updates. I don't have to deal with forklift upgrades anymore or worry about the infrastructure or any of that nonsense. When I dont need you anymore, I move my data somewhere else (if I need to) and move on with my life.
At the end of the day if you are evaluating whether to make a technological purchase for your company or otherwise, you will be the sole person responsible for locking your company's data into a subscription: binding it to that service.
Business decisions shouldn't be made in a vacuum and any resposible decision maker ensures that data can be moved or exported if its a requirement. Data should be system agnostic. It's up to the business and the stewards of that data to ensure that it starts out and remains that way.
binding it to that service.
We bind data to services/applications all day long. Who cares? If I need to move it, I'll figure out a way to move it.
If more than a few software systems become 'subscription' based, you have endorsed your company spending beyond the initial one-time purchase over time
No...? I mean, you're talking about doing an ROI and evaluating if a piece of software (and related infrastructure) make more sense as a CapEx or an OpEx. You can't blanketly state that a SaaS solution will cost more than an On-Premises solution. Different strokes for different folks and all that.
My point is we should be protecting our companies from Technology
I disagree. We should be enabling our users to use technology as they see fit. We shouldn't be in the business of setting forth rigid guidelines and forcing users into our preconcieved notions of what a piece of software is good for.