That may be practical in the US and Europe, but far less practical for
say, an activist media maker in a Rio favela opposing Bolsonaro's
efforts to "cleanse" the city of the poor. S/he might be limited to
the hardware on hand, and an upgrade requirement will be translated
into a change distro or
It may take a while for New York City's used electronics to percolate
down to thefavelas in Rio or back streets in San Salvador, and longer
yet to rural Africaand other places will a smaller population of
migrants to the US who can sendstuff home.
As a practical matter this may mean using older
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 11:33:53 -0400, Luigino Bracci wrote:
>I apologize for the rudeness of what I'm going to say, but stop
>creating 32-bit distributions is a decision that seems taken by people
>living in New York, having computers with 16 GB of RAM and 1 TB SSDs,
>and believing that the rest of
I also disagree with this decision. In my country, there is A LOT of
hardware (minilaptops, old computers) with just 1 GB of RAM; those
computers have 64-bit CPUs, but we recommend installing 32-bit distros on
them, because the performance of a 64-bit distribution in 1 GB of RAM is
disappointing;
Hello Steve,
>Last year, the Ubuntu developer community considered the question of
whether
>to continue carrying forward the i386 architecture in the Ubuntu
archive for
>future releases.[1] The discussion at the time was inconclusive, but in
>light of the strong possibility that we might not
