From owner-cvs-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 21 00:04:09 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-doc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E29B16A4CE; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:04:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C241E43D2F; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:04:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (scottl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pooker.samsco.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i8L03xvA027271; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:03:59 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost (scottl@localhost)i8L03xrg027268; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:03:59 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: pooker.samsco.org: scottl owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:03:59 -0600 (MDT) From: Scott Long Sender: scottl@pooker.samsco.org To: Tom Rhodes In-Reply-To: <20040920180603.6dc01457@localhost> Message-ID: <20040920180128.W21773@pooker.samsco.org> References: <200409201934.i8KJYfcS036447@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040920211839.GA15066@hub.freebsd.org> <20040920180603.6dc01457@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=3.8 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on pooker.samsco.org cc: cvs-doc@freebsd.org cc: John Baldwin cc: Hiroki Sato cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org cc: obrien@freebsd.org cc: doc-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: www/en index.xsl X-BeenThere: cvs-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the doc and www trees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:04:09 -0000 On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Tom Rhodes wrote: > On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:53:18 -0400 > John Baldwin wrote: > > > 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" 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'? > > This sounds like the best way to go in my opinion. > This was already fought over several weeks ago, and we decided that since NetBSD, OpenBSD, and a number of Linux's use 'amd64' in their documentation that we would also. I _thought_ that we also agreed to mention 'EM64T' and 'IA32e' in the same context to clarify what we support since there have been a number of questions about this from end users. Hiroki's wording was entirely correct and acceptable and didn't take away from recognising AMD and their contribution to the architecture. Scott