Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:53:18 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: obrien@FreeBSD.org Cc: doc-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: www/en index.xsl Message-ID: <200409201753.18974.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20040920211839.GA15066@hub.freebsd.org> References: <200409201934.i8KJYfcS036447@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040921.054126.07648742.hrs@eos.ocn.ne.jp> <20040920211839.GA15066@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 20 September 2004 05:18 pm, David O'Brien wrote: > On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 05:41:26AM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote: > > "David E. O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> wrote > > obrien> Log: > > obrien> Use consistent wording. > > .. > > > - x86 compatible, AMD64 and Intel EM64T, Alpha, IA-64, PC-98 > > + x86 compatible, AMD64 compatible, Alpha, IA-64, PC-98 > > .. > > > I would like to make it clear that FreeBSD supports EM64T > > by using the Intel's architecture name because the word > > AMD64 can confuse the users. Is that unacceptable? > > If I can list AMD Athlon, AMD K6, AMD K5, VIA, Cyrix, Transmeta, National > Semiconductor, IBM, etc... in the list rather than "x86 compatible". For > Alpha we would need to add Samsung, who also made some Alpha dirivitives. > For Sparc64 we would need to add Fujitsu. > Where does it stop? > > People owning Intel EM64T machines well know that it is a copy of the > AMD64 platform. x86 doesn't say Intel in the name, whereas amd64 does have AMD in its name. Maybe if we just called it 'x86-64 compatible' rather than 'amd64 compatible'? -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200409201753.18974.jhb>