Re: Intel vs AMD x86-64

Linus Torvalds
2004-02-23T17:26:21Z

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> In the long term, x86_64 creates more confusion:
> - SuSE says AMD64 [1]
> - RedHat says AMD64 [2]
> - Debian says AMD64 [3]
>
> Renaming might be some work today, but it might actually remove
> confusion in the future.

Well, the thing is, I _like_ a vendor-neutral name.

I think it's important to have multiple sources for a chip, and I think
one of the problems with IA-64 was that it was a locked-in chip with
patents and no serious competition internally (ignore the Intel mouthing
about "open").

The x86 is so great partly because there's been real competition. So I
think it's very important to x86-64 to have real competition to make sure
nobody gets too dishonest.

So AMD64 is a bad name, partly for the same reason IA32 is a horrible name
(and who have you ever heard use the IA32 name except for people who are
paid to do so by Intel?)

What I found so irritating is that _hours_ after the Intel announcement,
people were _still_ confused about whether the new intel chip was actually
compatible with AMD's chips. Why the f*ck not just come out and say so,
and talk about it? It took people actually reading the manuals (which
didn't mention it either) to convince some people on the architecture
newsgroups that yes, "ia32e" was really the same as "amd64" except in the
small details that have always set Intel and AMD apart.

So I don't really want to change the name. "x86-64" is a good name. I just
wish there was more honesty involved, and less friggin *POSTURING*.

Linus