I’ve been using hass.io on generic linux (ubuntu LTS), running in a hyper-v VM, since late 2016 without any issues. Gradually, over time - I’ve installed the add-ins for unifi, pihole, motioneye, grafana, influxdb, vscode, etc… These were quick installs using the hass.io supervisor interface and I went that route because it was easy to keep things updated and I could throw way more resources at the underlying vm. The other benefit was this approach seemed to be the most popular install method.
But now, as someone who is not financially in a place to buy a nuc or odroid, I’m wondering what I should do? My setup has enough sensors and integrations that a raspberry pi simply won’t cut it (even if I had one). Additionally, the add-ins (unifi, pihole) are foundational pieces of my infrastructure that I don’t want to move away from. Maybe, I can download a VHDX and convert it? The instructions aren’t clear.
I think I could better understand if this was a data-informed decision. Like - “we have the data and it shows that this install method is 5% of the user base” or something like that. But, without that kind of data, the sudden announcement makes this decision feel shot from the hip. Does the home assistant team really know for sure if this will or won’t affect the project’s adoption? I expect it will, especially given the backlash we’re now seeing from the community. Honestly it just seems like a very poor business decision given that it was likely the most common way for new users to attach (maybe, maybe not - there’s no data shared about what is the most common install approach).
Beyond that, I feel frustrated by this decision. Am I just not valued as a customer and user due to the way I installed? I’ve been paying for Nabu casa ever since it was lit up, and it would have been great if the Home Assistant team would have stipulated what exactly they needed help with or what exactly wasn’t working - because as an open source project maybe folks would have been willing to help out? Should I start looking for alternatives now that there appears to be a messy path forward for hyper-v?