The only hw vendor with a 10-1 driver is ATI, so why was it NV now?
The Unigine rep didn't actually mention Cat 10.1, if you read the fine print. The rest of the paragraph reads like supposition. It may actually be the case (I don't know), but the statement from Unigine wasn't "the driver is not ready" or "ATI/AMD asked us..." but rather "a hardware vendor asked us...".
It just seemed a bit odd to me...
"We don't want to release our program for Linux until Linux can run it well."
Is the program even ready and that is simply an excuse? Are you afraid it will look bad? Or are you joining with a hardware vendor to release everything all at once to try to drum up more attention?
I vote 3, if not all of them, but who knows. It's a CORPORATE MYSTERY.
I think it is a little to early to just start to speculate about it. Maybe it's the result of the UT3 disaster. (I can call it a disaster, right?)
I think the most likely explanation is that AMD still wants the ability to modify their extension a bit if necessary. Once there's a demo out there that is actually trying to use it, it becomes much harder to justify changing the api and breaking compatibility even if the demo is just programmed against an unsupported pre-released driver.
Call it what you like. I know I'm not thinking it was a success...I think it is a little to early to just start to speculate about it. Maybe it's the result of the UT3 disaster. (I can call it a disaster, right?)