12-07-2017, 06:00 PM
Regarding the 32-bit discussion:
I think Jerry's stated goal..."to show Windows users that Linux is not the hard OS they thought or heard it was"...pretty much sums up why the support for 32-bit processors is disappearing.
The focus is on transitioning current Windows users who are considering test driving Linux for the first time. My guess is the vast majority of that audience probably have machines built in the last decade running Windows 7, 8 or 10 (or God forbid Vista). If so, those machines pretty much all have 64-bit processors, right?
Therefore continuing support for 32-bit really does not advance the mission.
The goal is not to keep old machines alive. Actually the goal is not even to create a distro that will attract users of other Linux distros. The goal is to dispel myths about the the complexity of Linux and to ease the transition from Windows. A simple goal which I respect and appreciate.
What I find ironic as I read these forums is the number of semi-experienced Linux noobs (as I think of myself) or even mature Linux users who have migrated to Linux Lite from other more popular (and presumably better funded) distros.
Since Jerry is not attempting to create a one-size-fits-all distro, I think a fascinating question would be what is the natural progression after the LL goal is accomplished IF the converted user matures into a Linux expert? Do they stick with LL as their daily driver or would they seek a familiar but more robust alternative? If so, what distro is similar to LL but offers something more for advanced users???
Forgive my digression.
Thanks again Jerry et al.
I think Jerry's stated goal..."to show Windows users that Linux is not the hard OS they thought or heard it was"...pretty much sums up why the support for 32-bit processors is disappearing.
The focus is on transitioning current Windows users who are considering test driving Linux for the first time. My guess is the vast majority of that audience probably have machines built in the last decade running Windows 7, 8 or 10 (or God forbid Vista). If so, those machines pretty much all have 64-bit processors, right?
Therefore continuing support for 32-bit really does not advance the mission.
The goal is not to keep old machines alive. Actually the goal is not even to create a distro that will attract users of other Linux distros. The goal is to dispel myths about the the complexity of Linux and to ease the transition from Windows. A simple goal which I respect and appreciate.
What I find ironic as I read these forums is the number of semi-experienced Linux noobs (as I think of myself) or even mature Linux users who have migrated to Linux Lite from other more popular (and presumably better funded) distros.
Since Jerry is not attempting to create a one-size-fits-all distro, I think a fascinating question would be what is the natural progression after the LL goal is accomplished IF the converted user matures into a Linux expert? Do they stick with LL as their daily driver or would they seek a familiar but more robust alternative? If so, what distro is similar to LL but offers something more for advanced users???
Forgive my digression.
Thanks again Jerry et al.