Only x86 will should be supported, due to its widespread use (Intel or AMD CPUs or so). Support may be extended in the future to other freedom (or almost freedom) based architectures, such as RISC-V.
ARM or similar proprietary architectures will not be supported—there’s no reason to waste time on them. Supporting the most common proprietary architecture (x86) is sufficient. (Though seL4&Linux supports ARM anyway).
Disagree.
This policy is rejected.
Various architectures have various support statuses and this will remain so.
Contributors are welcome.
I don’t think it’s productive to have detailed project strategy discussions. For comparison, I don’t think suggesting something similar to other projects would result in any policy changes either.
It’s a do-ocracy. People who do work and are sufficiently compatible with the project make decisions.
The only thing with at least a chance to change this would be something similar like this for Kicksecure:
Yeah but it doesnt defy the waste of time on supporting multiple proprietary architectures which all give the same result = dealing with a blackbox, it has vulnerabilities which may not get patched and we dont know how many others still uncovered, requires blobs…etc.
For me i wouldnt bother with this, its similar if i choose bitcoin because its famous/highest in value not because its private or the greatest, but on the same time i wouldnt value other coins having the same issues.
There have been various contributors over the years who contributed support for their architecture, among other general improvements. The additional architecture did cost some of my time, but the overall result was a net benefit due to the other general improvements contributed. Due to this experience, I am not preemptively closing the door for future contributions.