cvs commit: www/en index.xsl
keramida at ceid.upatras.gr
Tue Sep 21 10:02:14 PDT 2004
On 2004-09-21 09:20, David O'Brien <obrien at freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 12:55:39PM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> > > - x86 compatible, AMD64 compatible, Alpha, IA-64, PC-98
> > > - and UltraSPARC® architectures.
> > > + x86 compatible, x86-64 (aka. AMD64) compatible, Alpha/AXP,
> > > + IA-64, PC-98 and UltraSPARC® architectures.
> > This one seems nice. It's hard to see the real changes if wrapping is
> > redone though. The contraction `aka' is probably something we'd like to
> > avoid too. How about this one?
> > : <p>FreeBSD is an advanced operating system for
> > : - x86 compatible, AMD64 compatible, Alpha, IA-64, PC-98
> > : + x86 compatible, x86-64 or AMD64 compatible, Alpha/AXP, IA-64, PC-98
> The "or" isn't really correct "x86-64/AMD64 compatible" would be closer,
> but people may say that is more confusing than the "aka". Is "x86-64
> (AMD64) compatible" better?
It seems better. I could be wrong but this is quickly turning into a very
colourful bikeshed so I think that we should try to reach a compromise between
the x86-64 guys, the AMD64 guys and the "AMD64 or its Intel equivalent" folks.
I was only commenting from an FDP-style POV so that the change wasn't lost in
a greater than necessary diff. If you think that "x86-64 (AMD64) compatible"
is better, it's better for me too.
More information about the cvs-all