Linux, BSDs, and some other OSes are OK with running on a myriad of disparate architectures and ABIs. The only reason for an open source OS not to run on someth

Linux, BSDs, and some other OSes are OK with running on a myriad of disparate architectures and ABIs. The only reason for an open source OS not to run on something is either lack of sufficiently detailed documentation, or code signing that rejects third party code a la trusted boot. Manufacturers should be releasing such documentation, and offering ways to disable trusted boot, change signing keys, or otherwise allow code to boot. Nothing more is required, and nobody is asking for support or assistance in porting anything. > It costs real money to guarantee a piece of software runs on a piece of hardware. The restrictions are not "artificial" - a company has just chosen not to spend time and money on a feature they have figured won't make more money than it costs to support. It also costs money not to include toxic ingredients in our paint and foods, it costs money to dispose of special kinds of waste safely, it costs money to run a warranty service, and it costs money to ensure hardware doesn't electrocute the user. People fought hard to impose those costs, for a reason: they result in a safer end product and benefit the consumer. Hackable hardware costs a tiny bit extra to produce, but the consumer and environmental benefits are significant, just like with those other safety and after-sales measures.