Bug#240896: not pending anymore
Previously Stephen Frost wrote:means
> Yes, we know, it's different from what the toolchain and kernel use. As
> it happens, so is i386.
Strangely enough my kernel, toolchain and dpkg all use i386.
> Guess they must be pimping everyone. Of course, I hope that on the
> ports page, regardless of the port name we use, it points out that the
> architecture was developed by AMD. Hell, if we *didn't* say that people
> would have good reason to wonder about us and our motives.
Except for a small minority people couldn't care less. I don't see
a start page documenting that Sun developed Sparc, or DEC developed
the alpha either, do you?
Playing devils advocate one could also argue amd64/x86-64 is just a
64bit extension of the ia32 architecture intel developed. See how this
whole debate is pretty much useless? Bringing in politics will only
result in heated discussions while we should be focusing on other
things. We should just pick a name that will not confuse people (and
realize that in a few years amd might only produce a minority of 64bit
chips after intel catches up), which includes it should be one that is
used elsewhere (think toolchain and kernel) as well.
Wichert.
--
Wichert Akkerman <wichert@wiggy.net> It is simple to make things.
http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple.
Reply to: