Only repair instructions? Or also installation instructions?

The line is fine, at best; the main rule we follow is if it serves a purpose. For example, a semi-generic HW upgrade guide to revive an old W7/10 machine that barely didn't meet the W11 spec with an element for Linux, but would otherwise have met it if M$ didn't let boneheads pick the minimum requirements (who also lack common sense by mitigating their "security concerns" where silicon level patches do not exist by locking out features dependent on insecure elements or things that are at risk due to the 2 infamous Intel CPU bugs on 7th gen and older). This may be within scope, but it's borderline.

On the other hand, if this is about doing something like I did here with a 2012 i7 Mini is different. Yes, I'm using software to work around a legacy Bonjour zero conf bug present in iOS 17 that still plagues some legacy printers (or the fix from Apple is to break them differently by slowing processing down like my M401 taking 3+ minutes on the HP RIP and firmware post 17.4 fixes). It extends the life of HP's last non-DS/HP+ lockdown models with the only "DRM" being a chip signature check and saying "Non-HP toner"— a different use of software, hence why I did it.

If it's just an install tutorial, these are sketchy at best. Yes, if I did a general upgrade guide (meant for "common" laptops) on how to best upgrade them better to run Linux well I would NOT show the Linux install process; I'd use "live" images to fake it and not put unnecessary wear on my SSD; or get a $15 64GB flash drive and hide it in the "dead space" with a USB extension to keep the delusion intact. HOWEVER, if I got a few requests for Debian best practice steps for example (and these weren't questions to avoid being sent an LMGTFY link) I would probably do it, most likely in a VM or common Dell/HP/MSI hardware.

This is why we largely frown upon software guides; due to MS EOLing Win8, I had no assurance of patching so I had to make a choice; pull the guide, or pull support and "obsolete" it, and let the community keep using it "as-is" until I see major bug reports that ruin that option. I got EXTREMELY LUCKY I was able to patch W11-specific steps into the W10 guide and designate it for both.

Software-based hardware guides have limitations too; for example, as the developer of Air Printer drops old OSes like 10.13/High Sierra, I need to adapt my guide by dropping off ALL of the Macs I listed that stop there officially to avoid conflict (Footnote 1). I was able to comfortably block the 2009-2010 Macs (especially Core 2 models, ick; they stink to work on as I can't just use Internet Recovery) and the troublesome Radeon 6000M 2011 iMac and Mac Mini (Footnotes 2 and 3) comfortably, and maintain an excellent list while leaving "roadkill" behind. If/when the day comes when HS is dropped by the developer, I need to rebuild MY list of recommended Macs to remove the freshly incompatible machines. I have 2 options to do this:

• Make an "incompatible" list but note the developer may have a way to send the last compatible version on an "as-is" basis, but ask first. No promises, basically; but it doesn't help my side that these aren't getting any younger and I had my reasons.
• Remove them from the guide entirely, and let the reader decide if they want to ask or pick one of the remaining systems if they know they were removed.

An example of how I may do this: If I remove the 2009-2011 machines and wash my hands of the problem (and the AMD 6000M GPU disaster), the guide is fixed. However, I now need to rebuild the "not recommended" list/remove it, and make decisions about some of the oldest Macs on my "recommended" list. It will mainly have to affect the max Catalina computers, not the Big Sur-Monterey age Macs (2012 Mini/2012-13 iMac). For those I can either do the following:

• Keep them on the "borderline" list as-is, but drop off the 2009-2011 list, and accept the risk of another deprecation needing an emergency fix a 2nd time later
• Keep them on the list, but graduate them to the "not recommended by default" list, after dropping off the 2009-11 Macs or noting them as no longer compatible. Essentially this list will keep holding super old machines I can't recommend a purchase of, but reuse if owned.

ONCE I resolve the newly incompatible legacy Mac issue, I need to decide what to do with the remaining legacy Macs maxing at Big Sur and to class them as a "golden borderline" system (2014-15 iMac/Mac Mini 2014). How I dealt with the 2012-2013 Macs will dictate that.

Meta note: the 2014 Mini is already borderline EVEN SUPPORTING Monterey due to the soldered RAM, age of the hardware, the massive CPU downgrade and combined with how hard it is to find a 16GB machine/how many people do not know they have a borderline useless 4GB MLB or willing to lie when selling to avoid being stuck with it.

The performance issues on the lower tier models CANNOT BE FIXED WITH A RAM UPGRADE to 16GB either, effectively making a large population of them unusable for much longer unlike the 2012/2018 Intel versions. Given these issues, I'd probably drop it on the not recommended list and rip the band-aid off for good then, but they're still common enough that it's not quite time :(.

The reason for the very distinct line in my hardware recommendations where the 2009-2011 Macs got a hard boot but I just added the 2019/2020 iMacs to the list under the iMac section is because while I find them comically overpriced where everyone has seemingly smoked with Snoop Dogg before listing (when you can get a Mac Mini M series for the same money!!!), they have enough years left I didn't want to blacklist them. Would I recommend buying a used one? NO! But if you own one and went to M2/M3 for example, it's got enough years left unofficially I'm not concerned. Different considerations are needed, even for repulsively overpriced machines like last-call Intel Macs.

Footnote 1: Yes, patchers exist to safely bring these 2010-2011 Macs that aren't a future disaster to Catalina safely; Big Sur gets sketchy. But I'm touching that in my guide. If someone patches in Catalina on a 2011 2.3 Mini, you do you but just because your experience was good doesn't mean I will endorse it.

Footnote 2: The 2.3GHz 2011 Mini doesn't have the problematic GPU, but I don't want to deal with people buying them and overlooking the 2.3GHz and then crying foul I didn't warn people about the Radeon 6000M disease.

Footnote 3: Same as the 2011 Macs: Use them if you wish, but they aren't exactly "prime" production hardware due to parts availability and progress making Peryn and Clarkdale effectively truly obsolete besides if you're a collector.