On Sun, 2012-09-09 at 23:06 +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On 9 September 2012 16:49, Ben Hutchings <email@example.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 2012-09-08 at 22:46 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > >> 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. > > But they are googleable, whereas "32-bit PC" matches stuff not > directly relevant. I don't suggest to remove the dpkg architecture names from documentation; that really would be unhelpful. In some places it would be appropriate to use both. But press material and introductory material shouldn't assume familiarity with those names. > >> 32-bit PC and 64-bit PC mean nothing, > > > > I think a lot more people know which of those they have. > > Do they, I wonder? Anyway, while it seems a nice idea to try and > collapse the entire distinction between the two architectures into a > single number, I'm not really sure who is helped here. See #575760. > The current > architecture names are well established, also outside Debian. They're > everywhere, in the output of gcc, packages names, library names, etc. There are many alternate strings used: amd64/x86_64/x64 and i386/i486/i586/i686/x86_32/x86. > Then there's the assumption that no other architecture can be a PC? 'PC' long since ceased to mean 'personal computer'. Servers with x86 processors are called 'PC servers' while personal computers with cellular networking are called 'smartphones'. > I'd say, a single unambiguous label is better than a vague label for > marketing purposes. Ambiguity depends on the context and knowledge of the recipients. 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