On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 10:35:51AM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote: > I think we should at least consider to rename, since the current i386 seems > to cause a lot of confusion. When even DDs confuse the meaning how can we > expect the user to understand?
Who is confused? > Most people know instantanously what x86 refers to while i386 (like i(4,5,6 > 86) seems to stand for a certain processor for most people. > > I know that i368 seems to be synonymous for x86 for *some* (read: not most) > people but I think referring to this architecture as x86 directly would > make everybody happy. Since intel now officialy refers to x86 as IA32, we > should consider to do so too. This would be far less confusing than i368 > and it would be consistent with the IA64 arch. ia64 turns out to be confusing too; it's Itanium but the main 64-bit architecture on PCs is now amd64. Intel calls this EM64T. The debian-amd64 list gets occasional queries about trying to install the ia64 distribution on amd64 machines. ia32 is a bit of Intel revisionism. x86 would be a better name, if we were going to change at all. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
