cvs commit: www/en index.xsl

[Scott Long]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Tom Rhodes wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:53:18 -0400
> John Baldwin <jhb at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>
> > On Monday 20 September 2004 05:18 pm, David O'Brien wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 05:41:26AM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> > > > "David E. O'Brien" <obrien at FreeBSD.org> wrote
> > > > obrien>   Log:
> > > > obrien>   Use consistent wording.
> > >
> > > ..
> > >
> > > > -		x86 compatible, AMD64 and Intel EM64T, Alpha, IA-64, PC-98
> > > > +		x86 compatible, AMD64 compatible, Alpha, IA-64, PC-98
> > >
> > > ..
> > >
> > > >  I would like to make it clear that FreeBSD supports EM64T
> > > >  by using the Intel's architecture name because the word
> > > >  AMD64 can confuse the users.  Is that unacceptable?
> > >
> > > If I can list AMD Athlon, AMD K6, AMD K5, VIA, Cyrix, Transmeta, National
> > > Semiconductor, IBM, etc... in the list rather than "x86 compatible".  For
> > > Alpha we would need to add Samsung, who also made some Alpha dirivitives.
> > > For Sparc64 we would need to add Fujitsu.
> > > Where does it stop?
> > >
> > > People owning Intel EM64T machines well know that it is a copy of the
> > > AMD64 platform.
> >
> > x86 doesn't say Intel in the name, whereas amd64 does have AMD in its name.
> > Maybe if we just called it 'x86-64 compatible' rather than 'amd64
> > compatible'?
>
> This sounds like the best way to go in my opinion.
>

This was already fought over several weeks ago, and we decided that since
NetBSD, OpenBSD, and a number of Linux's use 'amd64' in their
documentation that we would also.  I _thought_ that we also agreed to
mention 'EM64T' and 'IA32e' in the same context to clarify what we support
since there have been a number of questions about this from end users.
Hiroki's wording was entirely correct and acceptable and didn't take away
from recognising AMD and their contribution to the architecture.

Scott