Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:03:59 -0600 (MDT) From: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> To: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@freebsd.org> Cc: doc-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: www/en index.xsl Message-ID: <20040920180128.W21773@pooker.samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20040920180603.6dc01457@localhost> References: <200409201934.i8KJYfcS036447@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040920211839.GA15066@hub.freebsd.org> <20040920180603.6dc01457@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Tom Rhodes wrote: > On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:53:18 -0400 > John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > > On Monday 20 September 2004 05:18 pm, David O'Brien wrote: > > > 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. > > > > x86 doesn't say Intel in the name, whereas amd64 does have AMD in its name. > > Maybe if we just called it 'x86-64 compatible' rather than 'amd64 > > compatible'? > > This sounds like the best way to go in my opinion. > This was already fought over several weeks ago, and we decided that since NetBSD, OpenBSD, and a number of Linux's use 'amd64' in their documentation that we would also. I _thought_ that we also agreed to mention 'EM64T' and 'IA32e' in the same context to clarify what we support since there have been a number of questions about this from end users. Hiroki's wording was entirely correct and acceptable and didn't take away from recognising AMD and their contribution to the architecture. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040920180128.W21773>