Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
On Sun, 09 Sep 2012, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> 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 <hmh@debian.org> 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.
Yeah, and it can be fixed by "32-bit PC (i386/i686)" and 64-bit PC
(amd64/x86-64)".
> > 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.
I hope you're right. And yes, x32 as a partial arch would be fine.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
Reply to: