Re: real-i386 (was Re: i386 requalification for etch)
On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 10:35:51AM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote:
> 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?
Who is confused?
> 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.
ia64 turns out to be confusing too; it's Itanium but the main 64-bit
architecture on PCs is now amd64. Intel calls this EM64T. The
debian-amd64 list gets occasional queries about trying to install the
ia64 distribution on amd64 machines.
ia32 is a bit of Intel revisionism. x86 would be a better name, if we
were going to change at all.
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>