From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267597AbUBRPrj (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:47:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267581AbUBRPri (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:47:38 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:25498 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267597AbUBRPrh (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:47:37 -0500 Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 07:47:21 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Mikael Pettersson cc: Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Intel vs AMD x86-64 In-Reply-To: <16435.14044.182718.134404@alkaid.it.uu.se> Message-ID: References: <16435.14044.182718.134404@alkaid.it.uu.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Mikael Pettersson wrote: > > What about naming? IA-64 is taken, AMD64 is too specific, Intel's > "IA-32e" sounds too vague, and I find x86-64 / x86_64 difficult to type. > "x64" perhaps? x86-64 it is. Maybe you can remap one of your function keys to send the sequence ;) This whole "ia32" crap has always been ridiculous - nobody has _ever_ called an x86 anything but x86, and Intel is just making it worse by adding random illogical letters to the end. In contrast, x86-64 tells you _exactly_ what it's all about, and is what the kernel has always called the architecture anyway. Linus