Re: Bug#240896: not pending anymore
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 04:31:32PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
...
> has made its choice and overwhelmingly selected x86[_-]64. So why does
Two cents from a lurker:
This argument would be stronger if you didn't have to write "x86[_-]64".
I think it makes the case right there for "amd64".
Having "amd" in the name is fine: If some other manufacturer makes a
chip compatible with amd64, then that's what they've done and you can
run amd64 stuff on that chip as well. That's no more confusing than
running "i386" code on an Athlon. AMD came up with the architecture,
so there's nothing wrong with using "amd" in the name of the port.
I doubt that it's going to be tricky for a user migrating from another
distro to recognize that amd64 is the Debian port they want. It's not
like the page of ports will cryptically say "amd64" with a link and
leave it at that; surely it will elaborate enough that someone who
bought a box will figure out what port is best for them.
The most compelling argument against "amd64" I've seen here is that
the kernel and gcc use it, but the kernel config process at least also
uses "K8" and "AMD64". The gcc info page I'm looking at says "AMD
x86-64" everywhere that I can see (unless "athlon-4" refers to it
also), not "x86-64" alone. I'm sure you're right that the kernel and
gcc use x86-64 (or is it x86_64) as an official name, but neither use
it exclusively.
The best thing you can hope for in a name is that it cannot be
misunderstood. (It's acceptible if it's *not* understood, as long as
the reader knows they're not understanding it.) I find x86-64
confusing, because if I didn't know better I would expect it to be the
ia64 architecture, since it begins with x86 and thus connotes Intel.
Cheers,
--Pete
Reply to: