Re: real-i386 (was Re: i386 requalification for etch)
Ken Bloom wrote:
> Bastian Venthur wrote:
>> Nick Jacobs wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In-Reply-To=<200510091703.28199.neroden@twcny.rr.com>
>>>
>>>You mean, it's seriously been proposed that a
>>>significant amount of work should be done to restore
>>>support for a processor that has not been manufactured
>>>for 10 years? While slightly degrading performance for
>>>the 99.99999% of x86 users who have Pentium/Athlon/or
>>>better?
>>
>>
>> Maybe renaming Debians "i386" into something more accurate like "x86" or
>> even "IA32" (in consistency with IA64) would suppress discussions like
>> this in the future?
>
> We should either rename i386, or resupport i386, or both.
>
> We know what steps it takes ot resupport i386. What kind of work would
> be needed to rename i386 to x86 or ia32?
I think we should at least consider to rename, since the current i386 seems
to cause a lot of confusion. When even DDs confuse the meaning how can we
expect the user to understand?
Most people know instantanously what x86 refers to while i386 (like i(4,5,6
86) seems to stand for a certain processor for most people.
I know that i368 seems to be synonymous for x86 for *some* (read: not most)
people but I think referring to this architecture as x86 directly would
make everybody happy. Since intel now officialy refers to x86 as IA32, we
should consider to do so too. This would be far less confusing than i368
and it would be consistent with the IA64 arch.
Kind regards
Bastian
Reply to: