If there's a well-supported social or technical reason to remove the i386 Debian installer, I think that it would still be disappointing, but acceptable.
I don't know what those reasons are yet (I've imagined that they could be maintainer burden -- but as mentioned, I don't think there's much compiled-binary or i386-specific support required within d-i itself; key packages etc yes, but the installer itself, I'm less sure), and I still think that the strongest indicator of usage would probably be download statistics for i386 ISO images (in other words: are many people still requesting them?). Looking ahead, I think it would be good to try to figure out ways to avoid some of the frustrations caused by technological platform shifts. Yes, we probably learned some things collectively during each of those transitions, but also, the 40-year-or-so old computer that I have on a side table could be used for word processing, creating shopping lists, and probably saving and searching fairly large lists of food recipes (some of the tasks that I now use a much more powerful laptop for). The economic impact can either be phrased as an opportunity (hardware, software sales) and/or as a burden (finding new equipment, discovering incompatibilities, re-learning how to perform similar tasks using different systems. how much the vendor cares can also make a difference with each of these). Some amount of diversity in systems allows for comparison and improvement (maybe one design team -- or even one designer -- found a technique that applies to their system that makes it much more efficient at some workloads; that discovery can then be shared and adapted by others). The argument that people can still install manually using debootstrap or other methods is kinda fine - although in the same way that I like to refactor code so that there are fewer 'if' conditions and workarounds for particular situations (and to work towards removing those if conditions by fixing adjacent/surrounding components and then gradually updating when possible), we should be aware that there are communication (users, documentation) and comprehension (keeping per-architecture limitations in mind) overheads when creating additional tiers/partitions of support and functionality. So in summary: probably fine, some i386 ISO download stats would be nice, and is there a particular key package or packages that are causing problems here? On Wed, 31 May 2023 at 05:55, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues <jo...@debian.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > Quoting Diederik de Haas (2023-05-31 00:51:06) > > > If people have strong opinions about that plan, let us know please. > > > > I have *strong* opinions about this. > > > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2023/01/msg00372.html was a message/ > > plea to not forget about supporting OLD systems. > > > > While it may be a no-brainer for a person with a $/€ 1000 a month residual > > income to just buy new hardware whenever they feel like it, that is not the > > case for everyone. > > I think that depends on where you live. As Steve has said, if you live in a > place with tons of rich people around, so many "old" computers are discarded > by > them that it's not a problem for anybody to get hold of one of those for near > to nothing. People with too much money just go through way too many computers > per year, thereby creating a vast amount of old but still usable computers. At > my university I recently saw a whole container filled with "old" desktop > machines to be discarded (systems from 10 years ago, so definitely 64bit > machines). This is just disturbing in my opinion but hey, those old systems > don't run the most recent MS Windows anymore... > > This situation is probably very different around the world and I guess there > are many places where it is very hard to get hold of a machine younger than a > decade? Are you talking about those places? > > > Besides people in 'third world countries' (I actually don't like such > > qualifications at all), there are also people in the '1st world' who work > > their asses off just to put food on the table, and thus also don't have the > > money to buy new equipment. But if you want to interact with your own > > government, you highly likely will need to have some PC (type) equipment. > > It > > could also provide a way to learn/develop new skills. > > In my own "1st world" country I know a number of people in that situation and > at least over here, a "computer" doesn't help them to do the daily life > things. > They need a smartphone to stay connected with their employer via Whatsapp or > download the apps to participate in the things everybody else participates in. > In Germany they just rolled out a monthly ticket for trains and buses for the > whole country which will be smartphone-only starting next year -- will a > person > with less income invest in a new/old desktop machine or in a smartphone new > enough to run such an app? Yes, this is another discussion but I also do not > think your argument applies well to "1st world" countries because of this > reason and the reasons I gave above. > > > It's absolutely true that modern machines are more energy efficient. What is > > also true is that the production of new devices has a big environmental > > impact. > > > > https://mastodon.green/@gerrymcgovern/110329331475328263 said: > > > The European Environmental Bureau has stated that extending the lifespan > > > of > > > smartphones and other electronics by just one year would save the EU as > > > much carbon emissions as taking two million cars off the roads annually. > > > > I would be VERY disappointed if Debian would abandon people who do NOT have > > the means to just buy new equipment whenever they feel like it. > > That argument goes both ways. You could also say that for people with less > income, the electricity costs make using a more modern system cheaper for > them. > > This of course does not negate the environmental argument but the > environmental > argument is a tricky one. A 20 year old machine bought 20 years ago will have > racked up a lot of electricity usage which pales against the energy required > to > build and run small single-board machines that are similarly powerful built > today. There is a cut-off point where using an energy-hungry old system *does* > have a higher environmental impact than building a small new system. > > > Especially when I see various proposals to make the 'life'/work of companies > > who make BILLIONS a YEAR, easier. (I'll leave my moral objections to > > several > > of those aside this time) > > > > Cheers, > > Diederik > > > > PS: Nothing in here should be taken as a personal attack, but as I said I > > feel > > rather strongly about this subject. (And communication isn't my strong suit) > > There are probably many places in the world where your argument applies well. > Remember though, that this is also a person-power problem. If we can find many > more people interested to keep 20 year old systems alive by working on that in > their free-time, I do not think we would have this discussion. A lot of work > is > required to keep an architecture and its installer alive. I suspect kibi would > *love* more hands helping maintain d-i. There will always be someone with real > reasons for using 20 year old systems and wanting to do a fresh installation > on > one. The question is, is this worth our free-time or should we do other things > instead? Who is having fun doing that? We can argue a lot about the social > and > environmental reasons for supporting 20 year old systems but the sad fact of > the matter is: if there is nobody there doing the work then that discussion is > moot, no? > > Maybe it is also important to note, that this discussion is not to remove i386 > from the archive. This is about d-i. Even if d-i in Debian removes support, > this still will allow: > > - running older d-i and then upgrading > - using another computer to create a bootable disk image without d-i involved > - derivatives to gather enough volunteers to have i386 d-i support > > Thanks! > > cheers, josch
