Re: proper names for architectures
Hi,
I believe that the architecture name should be "Alpha AXP".
Most published manual use it for the architecture name.
In article <[🔎] E10IMkc-0007ZF-00@burrito.fake>
adam@onshore.com writes:
>> In message <36DDA177.63540DE3@logica.com> you wrote:
>> >Just consistency. After all, it could be AMD i386 just as well as Intel.
>>
>> Yes, but that would just be an Intel clone.
>>
>> >I recently got told off by a Compaq person for referring to a DEC Alpha, so
>> >I thought I'd pass it on.
>>
>> Yes... well!
>>
>> <![ %alpha [ <!entity arch-title "DEC Alpha" > ]]>
>>
>> Alpha folks, should this be changed to 'Compaq Alpha' or even just
>> 'Alpha' ?
>>
>> <![ %i386 [ <!entity arch-title "Intel x86" > ]]>
>> <![ %powerpc [ <!entity arch-title "PowerPC" > ]]>
>> <![ %m68k [ <!entity arch-title "Motorola 680x0"> ]]>
>> <![ %sparc [ <!entity arch-title "SPARC" > ]]>
>>
>> FYI, this is SPARC and not Sun SPARC since SPARC is a standard
>> from SPARC, International. Likewise, PowerPC is a standard,
>> and not owned by any company.
>>
>> Intel owns their chip architecture. x86 clones are still Intel
>> clones. Thus I think 'Intel x86' is proper.
>>
>> --
>> .....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
>>
>>
>> --
>> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-alpha-request@lists.debian.org
>> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>>
>>
Reply to: