* Tollef Fog Heen (tfheen@raw.no) wrote: > On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:52:22PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > | * Matt Zimmerman (mdz@debian.org) wrote: > | > I'm reverting the existing patch in CVS due to the controversy on > | > -amd64/-devel about the arch name. A new patch is welcome when the > | > issue is resolved. > | > | Right, we're working it out, but I havn't heard any real dissenters from > | amd64 yet. Those who don't like it should speak up please. If no one > | does then I guess we're all in agreement... > > My gripe with it is the pimping of AMD. It's a different class than > i386, since there you only have one letter and not the whole name, and > historical errors should not prevent us from doing the right thing > today. (Else, all linux ports should be renamed to linux-$ARCH, which I > don't think they should (pre-multiarch, at least. ;)) This is *such* a crap argument. It's not pimping AMD, it's AMD's architecture! Do you have similar beefs with alpha, sparc, mips, etc? I *don't* think it's a different class than i386 either, do you really think people don't realize what the 'i' stands for, or where the name came from (Hint: It sure as hell wasn't us or FSF)? > On the other hand, I don't have a better name to come up with at the > moment, and bastardisations like x86.64 (for the closer visual look of > x86_64) are kind-of silly. And any other name you came up with probably wouldn't be recognized by anyone, wouldn't be what AMD calls it and puts on their materials, wouldn't be what *anyone* else calls it, and would just generally end up being a pain in the ass. Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature