On Jul 6, 2010, at 4:48 PM, Randall Arnold wrote: > > > ----- Original message ----- > > From: "Dirk Hohndel" <dirk.hohn...@intel.com> > > To: "Nicola Mfb" <nicola....@gmail.com>, "Development for the MeeGo > > Project (discussion list)" <meego-dev@meego.com> > > Subject: Re: [MeeGo-dev] After handset day one - a plea for openness > > Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 16:32:54 -0700 > > > > > > > > > * not official support of meego on some hardware is community driven? > > > > Again, the default builds that we provide are optimized for Atom - I > > don't think there's anything wrong with that. It's fairly straight > > forward to build for other platforms if you need that, but I think it is > > not a reasonable request that we shouldn't optimize for our platform. > > > > I guess this is one part I don't quite get, so forgive my ignorance. Given > the eventual breadth of MeeGo, shouldn't the default be agnostic to > vendor-specific optimizations? Then of course there would be an > Atom-optimized build from Intel... ARM-specific from others... et al... > > Thanks for any clarification. > > This is a common approach for open source software. The person or people who write the first version of the software select a subset of hardware to get the project started. For example, the first version of the Linux kernel available to the public only ran on a 386 with AT drives, because that was what Linus Torvalds had at the time. If the open source project is successful (as Linux has been) more and more people will begin contributing ports of the software to additional hardware platforms. Linux now supports many different hardware configurations because people were willing to put in the time to add them.
MeeGo will eventually support a broader set of hardware, but it will take time and contributions from the community to make it happen. Dawn _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list MeeGo-dev@meego.com http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
