Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:10:49 +0900 From: Astrodog <astrodog@gmail.com> To: obrien@freebsd.org, "Kip Macy" <kip.macy@gmail.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is it possible to debug an AMD kernel on Intel Message-ID: <2fd864e0711261010qcea6858v7ba98bb528427576@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20071126180500.GB79600@dragon.NUXI.org> References: <m2fxyu5tsy.wl%gnn@neville-neil.com> <474983F1.3030700@pbxpress.com> <m2ve7p35iy.wl%gnn@neville-neil.com> <b1fa29170711252232yb798d46w9aa74f55954250f5@mail.gmail.com> <20071126180500.GB79600@dragon.NUXI.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Nov 27, 2007 3:05 AM, David O'Brien <obrien@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 10:32:13PM -0800, Kip Macy wrote: > > Also can we do what the rest of the world does and refer to it as > > x86_64 or 64-bit intel? Continuing to refer to it as amd (I know they > > came up with instruction set extensions but its now a fundamental part > > of the x86 ISA) only serves to confuse new users. > > NO. AMD pioneered this platform. Without them we'd all be unhappily > headed towards IA64's. It is Intel that has constantly chosen to confuse > its customers. This is not a problem for The FreeBSD Project to fix. > > Also why wouldn't calling it "64-bit Intel" confuse the Opteron users? > Or creation confusion that you run "64-bit Intel" on Itanium machines? > > Why aren't folks confused that you should use FreeBSD/i386 on a Core2 Duo > (or an Opteron)? >From what I understand, aside from the points raised above, renaming it would also require a fairly large ammount of work. --- Harrison
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2fd864e0711261010qcea6858v7ba98bb528427576>