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

Bug#240896: not pending anymore

* Tollef Fog Heen (tfheen@raw.no) wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:52:22PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> | * Matt Zimmerman (mdz@debian.org) wrote:
> | > I'm reverting the existing patch in CVS due to the controversy on
> | > -amd64/-devel about the arch name.  A new patch is welcome when the
> | > issue is resolved.
> | 
> | Right, we're working it out, but I havn't heard any real dissenters from
> | amd64 yet.  Those who don't like it should speak up please.  If no one
> | does then I guess we're all in agreement...
> My gripe with it is the pimping of AMD.  It's a different class than
> i386, since there you only have one letter and not the whole name, and
> historical errors should not prevent us from doing the right thing
> today.  (Else, all linux ports should be renamed to linux-$ARCH, which I
> don't think they should (pre-multiarch, at least. ;))

This is *such* a crap argument.  It's not pimping AMD, it's AMD's
architecture!  Do you have similar beefs with alpha, sparc, mips, etc?
I *don't* think it's a different class than i386 either, do you really
think people don't realize what the 'i' stands for, or where the name
came from (Hint: It sure as hell wasn't us or FSF)?

> On the other hand, I don't have a better name to come up with at the
> moment, and bastardisations like x86.64 (for the closer visual look of
> x86_64) are kind-of silly.

And any other name you came up with probably wouldn't be recognized by
anyone, wouldn't be what AMD calls it and puts on their materials,
wouldn't be what *anyone* else calls it, and would just generally end up
being a pain in the ass.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: