* rdp@talisman.mv.com <rdp@talisman.mv.com> [030424 13:55]: > On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Bart Trojanowski wrote: > > > * Rich Payne <rdp@talisman.mv.com> [030424 13:43]: > > > > On a side note, it would seem that the 'x86-64' branding may be dropped > > > > in favor of 'AMD64'. > > > > > > > > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9133 > > > > (7th paragraph) > > > > > > > > The Inquirer is not always right, so I am not sure if I should take that > > > > as truth or just rumors. > > > > > > I think they're right this time. Most of the press releases that have gone > > > out mention AMD64 instead of x86-64, and the marketing info at amd.com all > > > mentions AMD64 as well. > > > > So the important question is: should we adopt the architecture name to > > amd64, before there are any more deb packages created? > > or would that just create confusion as the within the kernel it's known as > x86-64, and the current website it x86-64.org? Good point... it is probably best to follow the decisions made at the kernel/gcc layer. And since both of these call the platform x86-64, that is what will stick. B. -- WebSig: http://www.jukie.net/~bart/sig/
Attachment:
pgpzfKbxwwzto.pgp
Description: PGP signature