AW: Re: Planned obsolescence ? (was: Re: Architecture baseline for Forky)

[Jan-Daniel Kaplanski <jd.kaplanski@aol.de>]

It's a really good point though about x86-64-v1. There are still thousands of Core2Duo systems out there. Anything pre-Nehalem just isn't x86-64-v2 compliant.

These systems basically flooded the used marked and are an entry point to low-cost computing for many. It's hard to justify locking out these users before support is dropped in the mainline Kernel.

It's only RHEL that's really pushing for it AFAIK. From their perspective it's reasonable, because of the the marginal performance gains that would benefit their customers. For anyone else it just isn't.

Cheers, JD

Am Di., Okt. 28, 2025 at 10:32 schrieb John Paul Adrian Glaubitz

<glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>:

On Tue, 2025-10-28 at 09:59 +0100, Romain Dolbeau wrote:

> Le lun. 27 oct. 2025 à 22:58, Milan Kupcevic <milan@debian.org> a écrit :
> > It would be more reasonable to count 7 years since mass sales or wide
> > availability ends as hardware typically lasts 5 to 7 years in production
> > environment.
>
> Hardware lasts a lot longer. People are forced to update because
> vendors have given up on support and are forcing users to upgrade.
> It's called planned obsolescence, as I'm sure you all already know.

There is no such thing is planned obsolescence. Code has to be maintained and
that costs money. You cannot force any vendor to support old hardware forever.

You can still pay them to get support for ancient hardware in most cases though.

Adrian

--
.''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer
`. `'  Physicist
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913