Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:18:39 +0000 From: David O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: www/en index.xsl Message-ID: <20040920211839.GA15066@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20040921.054126.07648742.hrs@eos.ocn.ne.jp> References: <200409201934.i8KJYfcS036447@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040921.054126.07648742.hrs@eos.ocn.ne.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 05:41:26AM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote: > "David E. O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> wrote > obrien> Log: > obrien> Use consistent wording. .. > - x86 compatible, AMD64 and Intel EM64T, Alpha, IA-64, PC-98 > + x86 compatible, AMD64 compatible, Alpha, IA-64, PC-98 .. > I would like to make it clear that FreeBSD supports EM64T > by using the Intel's architecture name because the word > AMD64 can confuse the users. Is that unacceptable? If I can list AMD Athlon, AMD K6, AMD K5, VIA, Cyrix, Transmeta, National Semiconductor, IBM, etc... in the list rather than "x86 compatible". For Alpha we would need to add Samsung, who also made some Alpha dirivitives. For Sparc64 we would need to add Fujitsu. Where does it stop? People owning Intel EM64T machines well know that it is a copy of the AMD64 platform. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040920211839.GA15066>