Chris Cheney <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > "Several of the people working on the port have expressed outcry at > this and questioned whether it was indeed my decision to select the > name for the architecture." > Chris did actually originally agree to "x86-64" and at least Tollef Fog Heen has agreed with it... > Also, Scott forgot to mention that even Microsoft names the arch > amd64, which he seemed to think was a good reason not to use it. ;) > They call it "x64" internally, allegedly. And you're confusing my natural sarcasm with proper debate, tsk tsk. > As far as marketing and user facing documentation from the various > os/dists the following use amd64: > This isn't a marketing decision -- we can still use "AMD64" in marketing material (or the better "AMD64/x86-64" moniker) just like we refer to PA-RISC as PA-RISC. This is a technical decision involving dpkg, so we should instead look at what each use underneath the hood for their next release. x86_64 amd64 x64 ------ ----- --- LSB FreeBSD Microsoft RedHat EL NetBSD Fedora OpenBSD Mandrake Gentoo SuSE GNU It's not as clear-cut as you make out ... which is one of the reasons we've *had* this debate! > Only Fedora refers to the arch as x86_64 in documentation. To use > anything else will, in my honest opinion, confuse users. > I believe that naming the architecture "amd64" when the Kernel and Toolchain they're using calls it "x86_64" is even more confusing! *Especially* for people using Intel chips. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Description: This is a digitally signed message part