Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:03:59 -0600 (MDT) From: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> To: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@freebsd.org> Cc: doc-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: www/en index.xsl Message-ID: <20040920180128.W21773@pooker.samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20040920180603.6dc01457@localhost> References: <200409201934.i8KJYfcS036447@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040920211839.GA15066@hub.freebsd.org> <20040920180603.6dc01457@localhost>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Tom Rhodes wrote: > On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:53:18 -0400 > John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> 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" <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'? > > 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. Scotthome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040920180128.W21773>