Fabian Groffen wrote:
> Ben de Groot wrote:
>> Bernd Steinhauser wrote:
>> | Wouldn't it be more clean if it is amd64 just like the Linux one?
>> | Because the arch basically is the same. I think that
>> | amd64(-linux) -- x86_64-fbsd
>> | x86(-linux) -- x86-fbsd
>> |
>> | would be more confusing t
On 21-02-2008 19:40:43 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > - x64 is IMO the worst name for the architecture (originally a MS
> > marketing term later adopted by Sun, looks too similar to x86, name
> > doesn't make any sense really if you compare
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 13:37 -0800, Josh Saddler wrote:
>
> Technically, x86-64 is still correct, but as Marius mentioned earlier,
> there would have to be a heckuva lot of documentation changes, which
> wouldn't make the GDP happpy.
Doubt the amd64 team, and infra would be happy either. Since lik
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> Beside, does it really changes stuff for anybody beside Intel fanboys?
In fairness, not just for Intel fanboys. Drop by the forums some time
and just try to count up all the threads asking "are the amd64
stages/media appropriate for my computer? i have a core 2..
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 07:40:43PM +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> Beside, does it really changes stuff for anybody beside Intel fanboys?
I guess there may be some confusion for people installing their first
amd64 on a Intel box. However, i think this sort of confusion is
solved more app
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - x64 is IMO the worst name for the architecture (originally a MS
> marketing term later adopted by Sun, looks too similar to x86, name
> doesn't make any sense really if you compare it to x86)
Marius said all I wanted to say on that name.
Beside, does
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 7:30 AM, Olivier Crête <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I really don't see the problem with AMD64, why it would be more wrong
> than ia32 or x86 (based on Intel's product numbers!). AMD64 was invented
> by AMD and they get to pick the name for it. The keyword amd64 in Gento
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 16:27 +1100, Andrew Cowie wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 19:42 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > But I agree, rekeywording amd64 to x86_64 would probably be more work than
> > it's
> > worth.
>
> Can we not just hardwire an alias into the emerge codebase?
>
> I must admit, from
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 19:42 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> But I agree, rekeywording amd64 to x86_64 would probably be more work than
> it's
> worth.
Can we not just hardwire an alias into the emerge codebase?
I must admit, from a purely optical standpoint, the idea of saying my
system is "amd64" wh
Christoph Mende wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:59:11 -0500
"William L. Thomson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Unless the work to do that is greater than the value of the change.
It most likely is. And beside of that: amd64 is the technically correct
term. :p
*sigh* I know I'm going to regret
10 matches
Mail list logo
