On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Chris Adams <cmadams@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Also there is the x64 marketing bullshit floating around.... -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
