Isn't "x64" still an x86 architecture?
pmk
joined 1 year ago
Peter Sunde said that the show is not a fair description of what happened and that it's missing the focus on what was important.
This reminds me of Rob Pikes paper from the year 2000.
http://doc.cat-v.org/bell_labs/utah2000/utah2000.html
If we want to do something radically different, there's always gopher and gemini browsers.
How do you decide what to archive, and what is the long term plan? If Annas goes down it can be pieced together again? Or is it served to users now too?
The archive team sounds interesting!
What can an ordinary user do at this point that would help?
It's more that changes can be made with coordination across the OS, with a shared vision and goal. Linux distros are primarily integration projects, putting together the components from other peoples projects. BSDs are in control of the base OS project as one coherent project.
I see what you mean now. I thought you meant as in upstream/downstream.
Tumbleweed is not a derivative of Leap.
view more: next ›
I just feel that it's technically wrong to call it x64. x86 is the architecture. The x belongs there, so x86-64 makes more sense, but not "x64". It's a marketing term, but it still bothers me.