> Good! Please tell Intel that it's easy to write a compiler to run on all > major brands of Unixes. A single person can do that. Why can't Intel? I > can't verify how correct your statement is. I don't know exactly how much > effort went into emacs to make it portable, exactly how difficult to write > a compiler is, etc. I may be wrong in saying the efforts to make emacs > portable were huge. But, if it's so easy to write a portable code, why > doesn't Intel do that? I'm not asking Intel to support all Unixes. I'm > merely asking to support all Linuxes. Why don't they do that if it's so > easy? > > I thought that it was because each distribution of Linux is a little bit > different from each other and this makes writing a portable code > non-trivial. But, many people here in this discussion group seem to be in a > different opinion. Writing a portable code is easy. Intel doesn't write > portable code because . . . ., why? Perhaps because of sheer laziness? I > think they will be happy if their compiler runs on Debian, SuSE, etc. I > don't think they gain anything by deliberately excluding other brands of > Linux than RedHat. I don't think of any other reason why they don't want to > support Debian than that that would incur significant cost which they don't > want to pay. >
I believe that whatever additional costs of supporting more distributions are, they are inconsequential to Intel. Their decision to support only RedHat is purely marketing/business-driven, not technology-driven. They see RedHat as a business partner that has HP, IBM, Dell etc. as customers. Intel does not see Debian as such a partner, for obvious reasons. It's in Intel's interests to steer more people from community distributions to RedHat. That's business... Cheers, Peter O www.dialore.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]