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

Bug#240896: not pending anymore

Previously Stephen Frost wrote:
> Oh, really?  That's why the kernel says i686 and gcc says i486?

Admittedly i?86 is crap in that respect but they're basically variants
of the same thing.

> Right, bringing in politics is useless and counter-productive, so why
> are you?  Choosing amd64 isn't political, it's the argument about what
> to call it and why is political.  I agree that we should just pick a
> name that will not confuse people- that's not x86-64/x86_64 which *will*
> be confusing to people as to which it is or will cause problems with our
> various tools.

Lets look at other big distributions:

Redhat:	x86-64	(or 'Intel EM64T & AMD64' in their whitepapers)
SuSE:	x86_64	(or 'AMD/Intel 64-bit processors')
Gentoo:	amd64
Mandrake: AMD64

So the two biggest ones picked x86-64 (ignoring the - vs _). Slackware
and Conectiva do not support the architecture at the moment. Which means
that the vast majority of Linux users will know and recognize x64-64.
Now lets look at what developers will encounter:

  kernel	x86_64
  gcc		x86_64
  binutils	x86_64

So all developers chose x86_64.

Looking at that data it seems obvious that the Linux/free software community
has made its choice and overwhelmingly selected x86[_-]64. So why does
Debian want to different and pick a name that no developer uses and
users will not recognize from popular other distributions?


Wichert Akkerman <wichert@wiggy.net>    It is simple to make things.
http://www.wiggy.net/                   It is hard to make things simple.

Reply to: