FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-09-2012, 01:46 AM
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
 
Default greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?

On Sun, 09 Sep 2012, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2012, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> wrote:
> > If "64-bit PC" is too vague, the alternative designator for the amd64 arch
> > is the vendor neutral "x86-64". The vendor-neutral designator for all of
> > i386, i486, i586, i686, amd64 and x32 is "x86" (i.e. it is for both 32-bit
> > and 64-bit). i286, i186 and 8086 are too old to bother with :-)
>
> Why should we be vendor-neutral? AMD invented the AMD64 instruction set.
>
> Intel invented the 386 instruction set and we call it i386.
>
> Why be vendor-neutral for things that AMD invents when we aren't vendor-
> neutral for things that Intel invents?

I don't know, and I don't care either way. I am fine with amd64.

But I object to "32-bit PC" and "64-bit PC". i686, amd64, x86-32, x86-64...
at least those are correct. 32-bit PC and 64-bit PC mean nothing, and it
will make the mess worse when we start shipping x32.

--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120909014645.GA1274@khazad-dum.debian.net">http://lists.debian.org/20120909014645.GA1274@khazad-dum.debian.net
 
Old 09-09-2012, 02:49 PM
Ben Hutchings
 
Default greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?

On Sat, 2012-09-08 at 22:46 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2012, Russell Coker wrote:
> > On Sat, 8 Sep 2012, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> wrote:
> > > If "64-bit PC" is too vague, the alternative designator for the amd64 arch
> > > is the vendor neutral "x86-64". The vendor-neutral designator for all of
> > > i386, i486, i586, i686, amd64 and x32 is "x86" (i.e. it is for both 32-bit
> > > and 64-bit). i286, i186 and 8086 are too old to bother with :-)
> >
> > Why should we be vendor-neutral? AMD invented the AMD64 instruction set.
> >
> > Intel invented the 386 instruction set and we call it i386.
> >
> > Why be vendor-neutral for things that AMD invents when we aren't vendor-
> > neutral for things that Intel invents?
>
> I don't know, and I don't care either way. I am fine with amd64.
>
> But I object to "32-bit PC" and "64-bit PC". i686, amd64, x86-32, x86-64...
> at least those are correct.

But none of them are widely understood.

> 32-bit PC and 64-bit PC mean nothing,

I think a lot more people know which of those they have.

> and it will make the mess worse when we start shipping x32.

If, not when, x32 is in the archive, it can only be a partial
architecture, and will be of no interest to the regular Debian user. So
I don't expect any mess there.

Ben.

--
Ben Hutchings
Time is nature's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen at once.
 
Old 09-09-2012, 03:25 PM
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
 
Default greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?

On Sun, 09 Sep 2012, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-09-08 at 22:46 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Sun, 09 Sep 2012, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > On Sat, 8 Sep 2012, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> wrote:
> > > > If "64-bit PC" is too vague, the alternative designator for the amd64 arch
> > > > is the vendor neutral "x86-64". The vendor-neutral designator for all of
> > > > i386, i486, i586, i686, amd64 and x32 is "x86" (i.e. it is for both 32-bit
> > > > and 64-bit). i286, i186 and 8086 are too old to bother with :-)
> > >
> > > Why should we be vendor-neutral? AMD invented the AMD64 instruction set.
> > >
> > > Intel invented the 386 instruction set and we call it i386.
> > >
> > > Why be vendor-neutral for things that AMD invents when we aren't vendor-
> > > neutral for things that Intel invents?
> >
> > I don't know, and I don't care either way. I am fine with amd64.
> >
> > But I object to "32-bit PC" and "64-bit PC". i686, amd64, x86-32, x86-64...
> > at least those are correct.
>
> But none of them are widely understood.
>
> > 32-bit PC and 64-bit PC mean nothing,
>
> I think a lot more people know which of those they have.

Yeah, and it can be fixed by "32-bit PC (i386/i686)" and 64-bit PC
(amd64/x86-64)".

> > and it will make the mess worse when we start shipping x32.
>
> If, not when, x32 is in the archive, it can only be a partial
> architecture, and will be of no interest to the regular Debian user. So
> I don't expect any mess there.

I hope you're right. And yes, x32 as a partial arch would be fine.

--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120909152547.GA23584@khazad-dum.debian.net">http://lists.debian.org/20120909152547.GA23584@khazad-dum.debian.net
 
Old 09-09-2012, 09:06 PM
Martijn van Oosterhout
 
Default greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?

On 9 September 2012 16:49, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-09-08 at 22:46 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> But I object to "32-bit PC" and "64-bit PC". i686, amd64, x86-32, x86-64...
>> at least those are correct.
>
> But none of them are widely understood.

But they are googleable, whereas "32-bit PC" matches stuff not
directly relevant.

>> 32-bit PC and 64-bit PC mean nothing,
>
> I think a lot more people know which of those they have.

Do they, I wonder? Anyway, while it seems a nice idea to try and
collapse the entire distinction between the two architectures into a
single number, I'm not really sure who is helped here. The current
architecture names are well established, also outside Debian. They're
everywhere, in the output of gcc, packages names, library names, etc.
Then there's the assumption that no other architecture can be a PC?

I'd say, a single unambiguous label is better than a vague label for
marketing purposes.

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@gmail.com> http://svana.org/kleptog/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CADWG95t+5gFriVW4-+Crk04cQwYanL9vkPcyXcy5SBpVhxjBVQ@mail.gmail.com"> http://lists.debian.org/CADWG95t+5gFriVW4-+Crk04cQwYanL9vkPcyXcy5SBpVhxjBVQ@mail.gmail.com
 
Old 09-09-2012, 09:47 PM
Ben Hutchings
 
Default greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?

On Sun, 2012-09-09 at 23:06 +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On 9 September 2012 16:49, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2012-09-08 at 22:46 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> >> But I object to "32-bit PC" and "64-bit PC". i686, amd64, x86-32, x86-64...
> >> at least those are correct.
> >
> > But none of them are widely understood.
>
> But they are googleable, whereas "32-bit PC" matches stuff not
> directly relevant.

I don't suggest to remove the dpkg architecture names from
documentation; that really would be unhelpful. In some places it would
be appropriate to use both. But press material and introductory
material shouldn't assume familiarity with those names.

> >> 32-bit PC and 64-bit PC mean nothing,
> >
> > I think a lot more people know which of those they have.
>
> Do they, I wonder? Anyway, while it seems a nice idea to try and
> collapse the entire distinction between the two architectures into a
> single number, I'm not really sure who is helped here.

See #575760.

> The current
> architecture names are well established, also outside Debian. They're
> everywhere, in the output of gcc, packages names, library names, etc.

There are many alternate strings used: amd64/x86_64/x64 and
i386/i486/i586/i686/x86_32/x86.

> Then there's the assumption that no other architecture can be a PC?

'PC' long since ceased to mean 'personal computer'. Servers with x86
processors are called 'PC servers' while personal computers with
cellular networking are called 'smartphones'.

> I'd say, a single unambiguous label is better than a vague label for
> marketing purposes.

Ambiguity depends on the context and knowledge of the recipients.

Ben.

--
Ben Hutchings
Time is nature's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen at once.
 
Old 09-10-2012, 01:41 AM
Clint Adams
 
Default greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?

On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 11:06:17PM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> >> 32-bit PC and 64-bit PC mean nothing,
> >
> > I think a lot more people know which of those they have.
>
> Do they, I wonder? Anyway, while it seems a nice idea to try and

No, they do not.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120910014153.GA24051@scru.org">http://lists.debian.org/20120910014153.GA24051@scru.org
 
Old 09-10-2012, 01:44 PM
Osamu Aoki
 
Default greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?

Hi,

On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 12:25:48PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2012, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Sat, 2012-09-08 at 22:46 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > On Sun, 09 Sep 2012, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 8 Sep 2012, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> wrote:
> > > > > If "64-bit PC" is too vague, the alternative designator for the amd64 arch
> > > > > is the vendor neutral "x86-64". The vendor-neutral designator for all of
> > > > > i386, i486, i586, i686, amd64 and x32 is "x86" (i.e. it is for both 32-bit
> > > > > and 64-bit). i286, i186 and 8086 are too old to bother with :-)

FYI: Despite the architecture name "i386", support for actual 80386
processors (and their clones) was dropped with the Sarge.
* http://www.debian.org/releases/testing/i386/ch02s01.html.en

> > > > Why should we be vendor-neutral? AMD invented the AMD64 instruction set.
> > > >
> > > > Intel invented the 386 instruction set and we call it i386.
> > > >
> > > > Why be vendor-neutral for things that AMD invents when we aren't vendor-
> > > > neutral for things that Intel invents?
> > >
> > > I don't know, and I don't care either way. I am fine with amd64.
> > >
> > > But I object to "32-bit PC" and "64-bit PC". i686, amd64, x86-32, x86-64...
> > > at least those are correct.
> >
> > But none of them are widely understood.
> >
> > > 32-bit PC and 64-bit PC mean nothing,
> >
> > I think a lot more people know which of those they have.
>
> Yeah, and it can be fixed by "32-bit PC (i386/i686)" and 64-bit PC
> (amd64/x86-64)".

Why make things more complicated. What is the rationale to pick i686
over others now. Why change to x86-64 which is AMD origin. If slashed
to listing are list of vender released names, it should be (AMD64/Intel
64). We picked one archive identifier at one point of history.

Osamu


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120910134440.GC5890@goofy.localdomain
 
Old 09-10-2012, 05:23 PM
Thomas Goirand
 
Default greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?

On 09/10/2012 09:44 PM, Osamu Aoki wrote:
Why make things more complicated. What is the rationale to pick i686
over others now. Why change to x86-64 which is AMD origin. If slashed
to listing are list of vender released names, it should be
(AMD64/Intel 64). We picked one archive identifier at one point of
history. Osamu

Strictly speaking, and because nobody wrote about it, Intel calls it EM64T.
A nice way to write it by the publicity team would be:

"amd64 arch [1]

[1] Intel supports this arch in most of its recent processors,
and brands / references it as the EM64T feature set"

This would help avoiding reactions like the one of W. Anderson,
and should be enough.

Just my 2 cents...

Thomas


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 504E220E.1020408@debian.org">http://lists.debian.org/504E220E.1020408@debian.org
 
Old 09-10-2012, 09:26 PM
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
 
Default greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 09/10/2012 09:44 PM, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> >Why make things more complicated. What is the rationale to pick
> >i686 over others now. Why change to x86-64 which is AMD origin. If
> >slashed to listing are list of vender released names, it should be
> >(AMD64/Intel 64). We picked one archive identifier at one point of
> >history. Osamu
> Strictly speaking, and because nobody wrote about it, Intel calls it EM64T.

Not anymore, and yes, I checked. That's why I wrote Intel 64. The
marketroids strike again.

--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120910212638.GB2608@khazad-dum.debian.net">http://lists.debian.org/20120910212638.GB2608@khazad-dum.debian.net
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:17 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org