On 9/28/2012 6:30 AM, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > AMDINTL64 seems to long for me.
Compared to "kfreebsd-amd64" or "kfreebsd-i386" it's not long at all. Besides, the length is pretty much irrelevant. What matters is that people know exactly what it is by name alone. > I think x86-64 would make some sense. SUSE for examples uses it. The problem here is branding. Most users have no clue what x86-64 is--they've never heard of it. All they know is they have a 64 bit AMD or Intel chip, of one name or another, such as Phenom or Core i7. The name I suggest above allows even the most challenged users to understand. The other problem is the existence of the name "IA64". This has as much to do with the confusion as "AMD64" does. To fix the entire problem, "IA64" must be eliminated so it doesn't confuse people who have non-Itanium Intel chips and are not techies. > Or even pc32 and pc64, since that is the classical PC platform. > But then why other workstations on Alpha, SPARC base should not be called > PCs as well. > > So maybe: x86-64 and x86-32. ;) > > Similar thing with PowerPC. powerpc-32, powerpc-64? You're over thinking this Martin. There's no need to change all the names, just the ones that are problematic. -- Stan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5066999b.3060...@hardwarefreak.com
