Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 12:25:48PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> 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 <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 :-)
FYI: Despite the architecture name "i386", support for actual 80386
processors (and their clones) was dropped with the Sarge.
> > > > 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
Why make things more complicated. What is the rationale to pick i686
over others now. Why change to x86-64 which is AMD origin. If slashed
to listing are list of vender released names, it should be (AMD64/Intel
64). We picked one archive identifier at one point of history.