In my humble opinion, my position is to keep those variants that don't require 3D graphics acceleration (match heaviest desktops).
__________ I'm using this express-made address because personal addresses aren't masked enough at this mail public archive. Public archive administrator should fix this against automated addresses collectors. El 17/10/19 a les 18:07, Jonathan Carter ha escrit: > Hi Live team > > For a while, the discussions have popped up whether we still want or > need i386 desktop live images. Building all those images and testing > them at a regular basis (sometimes regular as in, every few months) and > also at release time is quite tedious, and they're pretty much useless > compared to the amd64 images on any computer from the last 5 years (yes, > that crappy Atom cpu laptop that is locked to 32 bit is older than 5 > years already). > > I believe that at least the KDE and Gnome i386 images aren't that > useful. You need a reasonably beefy computer with enough memory to run > those, and at that point you might as well use the amd64 media. > > Since many other distributions are making the jump to dropping i386 > installation media entirely, I think that it's a good idea to keep some > live media around for one more release, as long as bullseye continues to > make it easy to do so. This will make it possible for users with 32-bit > hardware (who probably mostly uses it for hobby/specialist reasons by > the time bullseye is released) to continue using it for a few more years > on a supported linux system. > > At DebConf we discussed this for a bit too, where I said I'd take it to > the debian-live list for some additional feedback. > > Here is the list of our current i386 images: > > * debian-live-i386-cinnamon > * debian-live-i386-gnome > * debian-live-i386-kde > * debian-live-i386-lxde > * debian-live-i386-lxqt > * debian-live-i386-mate > * debian-live-i386-standard > * debian-live-i386-xfce > > I propose: > * At the minimum, dropping: cinnamon, gnome and kde > * Keep at least standard and one of the lighter desktop environments > (perhaps lxqt? xfce?) > > I'm not sure where the best place is to draw the lines, but standard is > very useful on old hardware since installing a headless/cli-only system > using a live image is a lot easier on old hardware than installing every > individual package using dpkg. And it seems worth while having one GUI > system available too (if only to test things like whether the hardware > even works on Debian, which I did recently on an old ThinkPad with S3 > graphics). > > So, what I'm asking is, how far should we cut back? Is there any > compelling reason at all to keep any of the 3 installation mediums I > want to drop? Do we need more than one gui system? And if just one, any > strong preference (along with reasons?). > > -Jonathan >
