Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:58:45 +0000 From: Ceri Davies <ceri@submonkey.net> To: Mike Hunter <mhunter@ack.Berkeley.EDU> Cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Flaimbait] "amd64" vs "x86-64" Message-ID: <20041217205845.GM38136@submonkey.net> In-Reply-To: <20041217194806.GA2437@ack.Berkeley.EDU> References: <20041217194806.GA2437@ack.Berkeley.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--DLrrb1ThO6aUXDeM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 11:48:06AM -0800, Mike Hunter wrote: > Hi, >=20 > I was wondering if anybody here has discussed the difference in > terminology between FreeBSD and Linux regarding the amd64 architecture. > Now that Intel is making chips that support AMD's instruction set, one > could argue that it would be better to use a vendor-neutral term to > describe the architecture. >=20 > I condemn Intel for the games they've played over AMD's architecture, and > I'm bringing this up to try to be "fair" to Intel; I'm only bringing it up > as something that should be discussed as a possible help to the FreeBSD > community as this architecture moves forward. Would the FreeBSD community > stand to benefit to adopt Linux's "x86-64" terminology? It's already been discussed and we're sticking with "amd64" as it was the first platform that we supported. NetBSD have also moved to "amd64" from "x86-64". Check the archives for further details. Ceri --=20 Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -- Einstein (attrib.) --DLrrb1ThO6aUXDeM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBw0iEocfcwTS3JF8RAlqVAJ4+J6kg7aty7fnDnsKjI6WaqbbNWACgmHHP BGdrd8J3NKBPB682QuPfqKI= =IzI9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --DLrrb1ThO6aUXDeM--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041217205845.GM38136>