Re: x86-64 on i386 (was Re: Promoting i386 version over x86_64?)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Once upon a time, Jon Masters <jcm@xxxxxxxxxx> said:
> But again, Apples to Oranges. x86_64 (we should formally call it "Intel
> 64", or similar, since I'm not aware of x86_64 having a formal blessing)

"Intel 64" has no "formal blessing" either (it is Intel's marketing name
for their copy of AMD's instruction set).  If you want to call it after
a vendor, it should be "AMD 64" anyway, since AMD created it.  They
called it "x86-64" (which is where the "x86_64" name came from), until
marketing got in the way and they changed to "AMD 64".

"Intel 64" is confusing anyway, since Intel has pushed multiple 64 bit
architectures.

-- 
Chris Adams <cmadams@xxxxxxxxxx>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux