As p...@originative.co.uk wrote... > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Peter Jeremy [mailto:peter.jer...@auss2.alcatel.com.au] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 1999 6:21 AM > > To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG > > Subject: Re: Directory structure on current.freebsd.org > > > > > > Oliver Fromme <o...@dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de> wrote: > > >In releases/snapshots they're called "axp" and "x86", while in > > >ports they're called "alpha" and "i386". > > > > I agree that having two different names is confusing. > > > > DEC (or Compaq) literature seems to use both Alpha and AXP - I'm not > > sure that either is an especially better choice.
Officially it is Alpha AXP. Alpha was too generic to be trademarked. > > I personally find "i386" a pain because it is used to specify both an > > architecture (IA-32) and a particular implementation (80386) of that > > architecture. In some cases it may not be clear which is meant. > > I think the architecture names are more appropriate than any cpu related > name. For the alpha, while we might all use alpha in everyday speech axp > is more specific when it comes to releases since the alpha release of Hear hear ;-) > the alpha code can get a tad confusing, I think that's why it was > changed in the first place. It'd be nice if i386 could become IA32 but > it probably won't happen. Wilko _ ______________________________________________________________________ | / o / / _ Bulte email: wi...@yedi.iaf.nl |/|/ / / /( (_) Arnhem, The Netherlands WWW : http://www.tcja.nl ______________________________________________ Powered by FreeBSD __________ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
