On Nov 27, 2007 3:05 AM, David O'Brien <obrien_at_freebsd.org> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 10:32:13PM -0800, Kip Macy wrote: > > Also can we do what the rest of the world does and refer to it as > > x86_64 or 64-bit intel? Continuing to refer to it as amd (I know they > > came up with instruction set extensions but its now a fundamental part > > of the x86 ISA) only serves to confuse new users. > > NO. AMD pioneered this platform. Without them we'd all be unhappily > headed towards IA64's. It is Intel that has constantly chosen to confuse > its customers. This is not a problem for The FreeBSD Project to fix. > > Also why wouldn't calling it "64-bit Intel" confuse the Opteron users? > Or creation confusion that you run "64-bit Intel" on Itanium machines? > > Why aren't folks confused that you should use FreeBSD/i386 on a Core2 Duo > (or an Opteron)? >From what I understand, aside from the points raised above, renaming it would also require a fairly large ammount of work. --- HarrisonReceived on Mon Nov 26 2007 - 17:18:06 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:23 UTC