On Sat, 2012-09-08 at 22:46 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Sun, 09 Sep 2012, Russell Coker wrote: > > On Sat, 8 Sep 2012, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <email@example.com> wrote: > > > If "64-bit PC" is too vague, the alternative designator for the amd64 arch > > > is the vendor neutral "x86-64". The vendor-neutral designator for all of > > > i386, i486, i586, i686, amd64 and x32 is "x86" (i.e. it is for both 32-bit > > > and 64-bit). i286, i186 and 8086 are too old to bother with :-) > > > > Why should we be vendor-neutral? AMD invented the AMD64 instruction set. > > > > Intel invented the 386 instruction set and we call it i386. > > > > Why be vendor-neutral for things that AMD invents when we aren't vendor- > > neutral for things that Intel invents? > > I don't know, and I don't care either way. I am fine with amd64. > > But I object to "32-bit PC" and "64-bit PC". i686, amd64, x86-32, x86-64... > at least those are correct. But none of them are widely understood. > 32-bit PC and 64-bit PC mean nothing, I think a lot more people know which of those they have. > and it will make the mess worse when we start shipping x32. If, not when, x32 is in the archive, it can only be a partial architecture, and will be of no interest to the regular Debian user. So I don't expect any mess there. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Time is nature's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen at once.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part