This has always been a difficult topic. Moving forward versus keeping things working.
Both sides have their arguments & there should be always some kind of balance between the two, depending on the deployment situation & target audience.
Personally, I've been always a strong proponent of moving forward for the sake of breaking old stuff we don't need anymore.
So, from my perspective, a lot of the reasons explained in this article sound to me like "but muh typewriter should still be viable in 2023, though".
This is what I generally don't like about a majority of #Linux culture.
People say shit like "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", while misportraying the spectrum of the word "broken" in this context.
To me, "broken" in the IT world, doesn't only mean, it's not working.
It means it's not viable anymore, today.
For example, your horse might still live & work, but you don't take your horse to ride to work every day.
Your typewriter may still work, but do you really prefer to use it to accomplish work assignments?
Your oldtimer car still work, because it was built in a very robust way, but is it worth the tons of more gas you waste, because its system is so inefficient & wasteful of resources?
#Windows3.1 literally still works on every computer with a tiny emulator to make it run or sometimes even on bare metal, if you know what you are doing, but would you complain, that you cannot run new software on #Windows3.1 or software from that time on your modern operating system?
Move forward, even if you break things along the way.
Its better this way, rather than being stuck in the past & not accepting new, well made technology.