On Monday 09 July 2007 14:22:27 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > -------------- Original message ---------------------- > From: Jarod Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I find the use of 'amd64' for package arch in > > debian/ubuntu/derivatives... well, dumb and confusing for end-users who > > don't know any better (as evidenced by the existence of this thread). > > > > I presume Debian jumped on building 64-bit packages for the AMD64 > > architecture before Intel announced their 64-bit x86-compatible chips, > > and decided to call the packages amd64. The lack of planning and > > foresight there is amusing. Unless of course its an intentional F-U to > > Intel... In which case, its amusing in a different way, but still stupid > > if you care about end-users. > > > > (Nb: Red Hat and SUSE generally use x86_64 as the arch for AMD64 and > > EM64T alike) > > Debian has this to say on the matter: > https://alioth.debian.org/docman/view.php/30192/21/debian-amd64-howto.html# >id250846 > > The jist is, it used to be x86-64, then it was amd64, but x86_64 is still > used. Now doesn't that just clear everything up? :-)
...only that seems in correct, from my recollection. I seem to recall amd64 being called x86_64 originally. Intel's implementation was then announced as x86-64. (note the _ vs. the - ). After that, AMD went with amd64 to differentiate more. But in any case, I still think x86_64 makes a lot more sense than amd64 for the arch tag on stuff that runs on both Intel and AMD 64-bit x86-compatible architectures. -- Jarod Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
