> On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 02:14:49PM +0100, David Southwell wrote: > > Hi every one > > > > My understanding is that one uses the amd64 for building a kernel for > > systems with Intel Quad Core processors. > > That depends on if you installed the amd64 version of FreeBSD or the i386 > version. The kernel should of course match the rest of the system. > Intel's Quad Core processors (at least all the models they have released so > far) supports both amd64 and i386. (i386 being 32-bit, while amd64 is > 64-bit.) > > > It is helpful when naming conventions follow a logical strand. I mean why > > does freebsd use a single manufacturer's name to represent a genre? > > The amd64 architecture is called that because it was AMD who invented and > created it and was for a while the only one using it and since AMD named > the architecture AMD64 that was the name FreeBSD used too. Later Intel > also started using it (while using their own name(s) for it), but FreeBSD > has stuck with the name amd64. This is no more strange than calling the > i386 architecture for i386 even if it runs on a whole lot of processors > other than the original Intel 80386.
I would still be inclined to feel that although the naming convention can be historically justified it remains practically illogical!!! Naming conventions work well when they help people understand what they represent. To illustrate my point at one time Britain referred as "the British Empire" but such a title would be laughable today!! There is enough for people to get their head around in understanding what is going on without adding additional levels of confusion because noone thought of future developments!! However this is not an argument anyone is likely to get steamed up about -- however illogical it may be <chuckles> david _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"