On 02/04/2011 01:36 PM, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
I actually filed this report when reviewing the release notes. I found
these "PC" descriptions vague/ambiguous. For example, a 32-bit PowerPC
is not i386. I think we should stick to x86 and x86-64, possibly
mentioning AMD64 and Intel 64. If not, then precise "IBM PC compatible",
not just "PC". I suppose release notes writers looked at /ports/ and
improvised a bit given the current status of /ports/.
The average person knows what "PC" means, as common usage defines that
term to mean "not Mac".
There are PCs and Macs in the world, and nothing
else. Recently, people are becoming aware of the difference between "64
bit" and "32 bit" but have no clue about the technical names for them.
I doubt if a person with a 32-bit PowerPC who wants to run Debian is
going to be confused by "32-bit PC (i386)". Give our users of less
popular architectures more credit than that. If they know that Debian
ought to work on their system, they probably know the precise name of
their architecture (or at least that it is *not* "PC").
The real danger is that ordinary users with very little awareness of
architecture differences with a plain old 32 or 64 bit PC will
inadvertently download the install media for more exotic architectures
(like ia64) because they are lost in a sea of unfamiliar designations
and therefore just resort to making a wild guess. Using the most common
name, "PC" to refer to the most common two architectures is therefore
perfectly appropriate, as it will be comfortably familiar for those with
less knowledge, and not ambiguous at all to those with more.