[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#254598: Name of the Debian x86-64/AMD64 port

Chris Cheney <ccheney@cheney.cx> 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

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

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.

Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: