Bug#930318: Suggestion for i386/amd64 "PC"
Hi,
I for one wish to keep it as is.
But let me add a bit more perspective on this ....
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 10:01:25PM +0900, hoxp18@noramail.jp wrote:
> Package: release-notes
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Dear maintainers,
>
> This would be almost about "already-done" in Debian community, as in,
>
> Bug#575761: x86 architecture names are confusing
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=575761
> Where?
> ======
>
> en/whats-new.dbk: "Supported architectures" section
> 1. 32-bit PC (i386) and 64-bit PC (amd64)
> 2. 64-bit ARM (arm64)
"arm64" is not Debian arch. AArch64 is what you are thinking.
Our situation is: https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/releasenotes
64-bit PC (amd64)
32-bit PC (i386)
EABI ARM (armel)
Hard Float ABI ARM (armhf)
MIPS (little endian)
MIPS (big endian)
IBM System z
64-bit ARM (AArch64)
POWER Processors
64-bit MIPS (little endian)
Maybe we can have a bit more consistency ;-)
Unlike ARM and MIPS which have instruction set vendor, So called
computers with IBM PC/AT compatible history are a bit difficult.
This is the main PC architecture with 2 major vendors defining
instruction sets: Intel <-> AMD
The current 64 bit PC uses the basic instruction set based on AMD ones
(Yah, there are some Intel extensions...).
(Not the initial Intel IA64.)
> WHY?
> ====
>
> * There are many "amd64" servers and "arm64" servers.
> * There could be ARM PCs (starting with Windows 10 notebooks).
Not much arm netbook are sold...
We see more Chromebook on slow intel or arm chips
There is arm-note PC in China.
> * To avoid "64 bit PC" could mean both amd64 and arm64.
I still don't think arm got any significant position on PC market.
> Suggestion
> ----------
>
> 1. 32-bit x86 (i386) and 64-bit x86 (amd64)
This can be an option... but people may come back what is x86 since only
old guy knows 386, 486, 686, .... Actually, It doesn't run on 8086,
80186, 80286, 80386. (Maybe even 80486 can't run Debian GNU/Linux by now.)
So biggest problem is false "i386", here.
> 2. 64-bit ARM (arm64)
This is not good since arch name is not "arm64"
2. 64-bit ARM (AArch64)
This reflects our situation.
> In other words, I think, "PC" is not necessary now,
I disagree.
> and a phrase "86" is alive since Intel released
> their 8th gen. Core CPU "Core i7-8086K" in 2018.
But Does AMD use it. We try to be vendor agnostic.
Let's see what others do.
WIKIPEDIA; FREEBSD page lists;
386, AMD64, PowerPC, PC-98, SPARC64, Alpha, IA-64, ARM, MIPS, Xbox, Wii, Xen
--> amd64
So does NETBSD uses amd64
Debian arch name situation was in a similar situation. By using "PC" we
are trying to avoid confusion of people. People with Intel new PC can
pick a right architecture (arm64) instead of IA64.
Looking at Ubuntu site: AMD64 (x86_64) (No more 32 bit)
This (x86_64) is an idea we may adopt if it is required.
REDHAT x86 (They have no more 32 bit)
Considering non-existing real i386 support and to be explicit about
Intel instruction set name x86_64, the following may be an alternative
iff you hate "PC".
32-bit x86 computer
64-bit amd64, x86_64 computer
64-bit ARM computer (AArch64)
(x86_32 means something else. So we can't use it here)
Osamu
Reply to: