[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?

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.

> 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 Hutchings
Time is nature's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen at once.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: