On 7/9/07, Jarod Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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).
Blame Intel. Intel *insisted*, *at length*, *loudly*, that Itanium, dubbed "IA-64", was the wave of the future, and that IA-32 was a dead end. Given the "IA-64" moniker being so similar to "x86-64", and given that AMD was supposedly the only one doing that stuff, I think using "AMD64" to differentiate from "IA-64" is very reasonable. So that's what Debian did. When Intel changed their tune, Debian decided they weren't about to rename an entire target architecture in their build tree just because Intel had its corporate head up its corporate ass, and I don't blame them. (Ubuntu follows suit because it's derived from Debian.) I almost (*almost*) wish Intel had made good on their threats to kill x86. They've done little but confuse this whole situation considerably, while stealing credit from AMD. Intel also killed the DEC Alpha in the process, which is just a damn shame. It would have been nice to have Intel get their comeuppance. But that would just replace Intel-dominance with AMD-dominance, and that would be just as unhealthy in the long run. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" and all that. -- Ben _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
