-------------- Original message ---------------------- From: Jarod Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 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. It only seems incorrect if you *AREN'T* AMD :-) They can't license something called x86-64 because it's too generic, and, oh yeah, Intel owns "x86".... The official explaination from AMD is here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2003/08/msg00031.html C-Ya, Kenny _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
