On Aug 16, 2015 12:50 PM, "Reindl Harald" <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 16.08.2015 um 18:14 schrieb Roberto Ragusa:
>>
>> On 08/16/2015 10:55 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> no the architecture was created by Intel
>>>
>>> AMD added the 64bit capabilities in a compatible way other than Intel itself tried with Itanium which was not able to run i686 instructions and later Intel was forced to license the AMD extensions
>>
>>
>> Well, saying that the architecture was created by Intel is an evident
>> "rewrite the history" exercise.
>
>
> no, the main architecture is still Intel
> AMD extended it and Intel adopted the extenisons
>
> but *the point* is that calling it AMD64 is *plain wrong* because AMD/Inetl *and others* are using *the same* architecture and using a AMD64 suffix would imply "that binary is for AMD CPU's only" which is wrong
>
>
>> You immediately contradict in the second sentence, where you describe the IA64 fiasco,
>> and the adoption of AMD64 by Intel.
>> Or maybe you think that "licensing the AMD extensions" is equivalent to "the architecture
>> was created by Intel"?
>>
>> Let's recap how it really went:
>>
>> - Intel designed a new incompatible arch (IA64), it was useless at emulating the i386
>> and was a substantial market failure
>> - AMD designed the AMD64, as an extension if IA32
>> - Linux was running on AMD64 immediately at day 0, as AMD had been giving around simulators
>> for chips not created yet
>> - Microsoft, who had already ported Windows to IA64, created an AMD64 version too
>> - Intel tried to avoid the humiliating acceptance that their rivals did a better job
>> than them, by going to extend the ia32 in a different way
>> - Microsoft told Intel "I already did a port for you, you do not dare asking me another"
>> - Intel released the "EM64T" architecture
>> - Linus wrote a furious email saying that he had spent time studying the EM64T manuals
>> only to finally realize that it could all have been replaced with just the sentence
>> "it's AMD64" (differences are only found in little details)
>>
>> Nowadays some use "AMD64" and some "x86_64", with Intel preferring the second for obvious reasons.
>
>
> i know the history well, long enough in the business
>
>
>> Having said that, the cost of change has got probably too high, so we will keep
>> the current mix of AMD64 (used by BSD, Windows, Solaris, Java, Debian)
>> and x86_64 (used by Linux, Fedora, SuSE, gcc)
>
>
> it's not a point of "costs"
> it's simply plain wrong
>
> and just because Debian is here wrong as well as calling the httpd package "apache" don't make it right
OK you can stop this thread now. We aren't going to change in any case and it doesn't matter which of you is correct here.
If you really must argue further please do it off list.
josh
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
