There's that "buy" word again. Unless one hires a developer to write it, so one owns the rights to the code, one does not buy software. It is licensed. Please read the EULA (End User License Agreement) that comes with (or in) the software. The distinction is rather important, for it respects intellectual property.

And "set for life"? I assume you mean the life of the computer you install it onto, and the operating system that runs it.

I can remember buying a number of computers that became obsolete (unsupported) within five years. You reach a point where the hardware can no longer support the latest OS, or a point where the latest OS "breaks" the software, or a point where the software application developer no longer supports the OS you must use on your old hardware, or a point where the application developer just drops all support for an older version. For those reasons, I have several older computers and various versions of their operating systems, just so I can run old software and open old files for updates or printing documents to PDF (those old computers do not support modern printers).

Ok there are no virtual copies you can only produce a jpeg in fact if you want to save any development work you have to produce a jpeg or a tiff. Can't sync edits. No lens corrections...

This is junk to be frank and the cost is the same as Lightroom pretty much with much less functionality.

It's a no from me, and to be fair there are better programs that are not Lightroom, it is better than mspaint but dxo on1 luminar darktable, raw therapee, lightzone are all better alternatives.

This is all wrong. First, the programs you list as 'better alternatives than lightroom' are all editors, not catalogers.
ACDSee has development mode that saves edits without saving as a jpeg. It also has both perspective correction and lens distortion correction. My statement however was in response to
Lightroom being the best cataloger, and and I highly doubt that. Cataloging/managing photo's is super important for amateur photographers that have many thousands of personal photos that they want to be able to find easily, and ACDSee would be very difficult to beat from that perspective, whilst being no slouch in it's editing capabilities either. If you would like to list the cataloging features that make Lightroom "unsurpassed" I'm all ears, but try to be more accurate than you were in your misinformation related to editing.

To be frank, if you want to call it "junk" you should have a clue what you are talking about, and you don't.