Answers: customer support, company image.
For free software, and a few of my favourite companies, unsupported
platforms (and this means non-Intel UDI) go in a contrib directory or on
someone else's web site. Niche users use the software, changes and
fixes are fed back etc. All the things which are natural to the open
development community.
For all companies, this is a policy decision that has to be made.
Most companies choose another approach.
Even when porting is as trivial as a recompile, many companies will not
do it.
Even when the driver has been ported by a company employee or elsewhere,
many companies will not release the port. Even if they _use_ the ported
driver internally, it may not be released. This has been the case at
several companies I have worked for.
For many companies, the web site etc. is a customer support network, but
it is also the shop front for the company. Only "officially supported"
platforms are represented, and that means platforms for which the
company has the hardware, resources to test the port, answer technical
support questions etc.
This will improve only as companies embrace the open development
philosophy.
It would be nice if this is what SCO intend by working with the Linux
community.
> I agree it can change the prospects of Linux, but why do we fear that?
> According the announcement this was all cross platform. We should be
> arguing this stuff on it's technical points not it's philosophical ones.
The fears are mostly political, not technical. Some minor overheads due
to network buffering style etc. -- I'm sure they can be worked out. But
if hardware becomes more closed... well, roll on death to independent
developers. What technical problems we are allowed to solve will be
irrelevant to the wider community.
My humble opinion,
-- Jamie
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/