On Jul 23, 2007, at 5:42 PM, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Roy T. Fielding wrote: >> On Jul 23, 2007, at 2:32 PM, James Carlson wrote: >>> A potential pitfall of picking such a new name is that others will >>> likely confuse it with the problem of porting software _onto_ >>> Solaris >>> (a la /usr/ports on BSD) instead of the problem of porting Solaris >>> itself. So, the name needs to be clear. Some possible ideas: >>> >>> Architecture Porting >>> Architecture Bring-up >>> Porting OpenSolaris >> >> I don't know of anyone outside Sun that uses the term Architecture >> to refer to the CPU platform. > > NetBSD: "Ports by CPU architecture" > http://www.netbsd.org/ports/#ports-by-cpu > > Intel: "Intel? 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer's > Manuals" > http://www.intel.com/products/processor/manuals/index.htm > > Linux: "Although originally developed first for 32-bit x86-based > PCs (386 or > higher), today Linux also runs on (at least) the Compaq Alpha AXP, > Sun SPARC and > UltraSPARC, Motorola 68000, PowerPC, ARM, Hitachi SuperH, IBM S/ > 390, MIPS, HP > PA-RISC, Intel IA-64, DEC VAX, AMD x86-64, AXIS CRIS, Renesas M32R, > and Atmel > AVR32 architectures; for many of these architectures in both 32- > and 64-bit > variants." > http://www.kernel.org/#whatislinux
Heh, I should have been more specific. Obviously, computing architecture is a common term (my copy of Hennessey and Patterson is right in front of me). My point is that nobody else assumes that the bare word Architecture somehow refers only to sparc/ppc/i86 or what have you. The word architecture is used all over the place. That's why it needs to be prefixed with the word CPU, or the name of a specific CPU, in order for the community name to make any sense outside SPARCland. ....Roy
