I don't support the Iyonix, because it does not offer enough processing power. And if it will do so in the future (say via a PCI-FPGA-card) it would now be way too late. For the same reasons I would no longer support the finished Omega, if it was to be released now.
And as for the Iyonix having an FPGA: Is it user-programmable? Is there an API and some kind of OS module that prevents different applications competing for the use of this FPGA to mess up the system? I thought not. And even if all this existed, there are not enough software developers left in this market, for it to actually make a difference.
What you are saying about OSS code usually not being optimised for a specific platform, is of course very true. I said much the same thing in my post, where I mentioned, that it often is highly abstracted. Abstraction often leads to bloated code. Modern processors are so fast, that this does not matter, however even the fastest ARM processors are very, very slow compared to modern PowerPC or x86 processors.
There is also a lot of OSS code out there, wich is highly optimized for specific processors, simply because even the fastest processors available today are only just about fast enough for some tasks. These tasks tend to be the ones that power-users lust after (like video-encoding) and bring all the prestige.
Personally, I don't see why we should choose between the two options (a and b) you mention. I think the only chance RISC OS has to survive on the desktop is a combination of both options.