Intel should be ashamed of itself over AMD 64, Torvalds says

[NFS4]

Yeah, I know it's from The Inquirer, but the Torvalds stuff are actually quotes

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14301

 

[MDE]

The problem is that nobody outside of the tech world (and many inside) will give two craps.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: NFS4
Yeah, I know it's from The Inquirer, but the Torvalds stuff are actually quotes

You mean parts of actual quotes, probably taken out of context, or they would've posted the entire, original post.

 

[sandorski]

Intel rarely even mutters the name of AMD. It must pain them greatly to be following AMD.

 

[Megatomic]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: NFS4
Yeah, I know it's from The Inquirer, but the Torvalds stuff are actually quotes

You mean parts of actual quotes, probably taken out of context, or they would've posted the entire, original post.

The Inq's articles are too short to contain full quotes from Linus Torvalds. You know that....


Anyone on that mailing list they mention that would care to post full quotes from Linus?

 

[Schadenfroh]

torvalds>intel

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Megatomic
The Inq's articles are too short to contain full quotes from Linus Torvalds. You know that....

Anyone on that mailing list they mention that would care to post full quotes from Linus?

Actually I dont know that, and I dont care really.

If it was too short for the whole quote, the least they could do was paste a URL pointing to the post. But apparently, that kind of journalist ability is beyond their grasp.

 

[Zebo]

AMD now, tomorrow and forever baby.

 

[Megatomic]

I can't argue with you there. I often criticize them for the same thing.

 

[buleyb]

who cares really. You want Intel to bow down and pay tribute to AMD? This is the business world people, Intel isn't trying to be nice to AMD.

And Linus is an idiot. I'd love to see the entire email he sent, just to get proper context. But from the article, it doesn't seem like he cares about AMD, but more that he is bitter about something involving Intel, and just using this to rant.

 

[n0cmonkey]

If all of you want to read the entire email, why didn't any of you idiots look it up?

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
>
> hmm, so the current x86_64 will be changed to x86-64 or
> will there be x86_64 and x86-64?

No. The filesystem policy _tends_ to be that dashes and spaces are turned
into underscores when used as filenames. Don't ask me why (well, the space
part is obvious, since real spaces tend to be a pain to use on the command
line, but don't ask me why people tend to conver a dash to an underscore).

So the real name is (and has always been, as far as I can tell) x86-64.

Actually, I'm a bit disgusted at Intel for not even _mentioning_ AMD in
their documentation or their releases, so I'd almost be inclined to rename
the thing as "AMD64" just to give credit where credit is due. However,
it's just not worth the pain and confusion.

Any Intel people on this list: tell your managers to be f*cking ashamed of
themselves. Just because Intel didn't care about their customers and has
been playing with some other 64-bit architecture that nobody wanted to use
is no excuse for not giving credit to AMD for what they did with x86-64.

(I'm really happy Intel finally got with the program, but it's pretty
petty to not even mention AMD in the documentation and try to make it
look like it was all their idea).

Linus

Short, simple, and to the point.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
If all of you want to read the entire email, why didn't any of you idiots look it up?

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
>
> hmm, so the current x86_64 will be changed to x86-64 or
> will there be x86_64 and x86-64?

No. The filesystem policy _tends_ to be that dashes and spaces are turned
into underscores when used as filenames. Don't ask me why (well, the space
part is obvious, since real spaces tend to be a pain to use on the command
line, but don't ask me why people tend to conver a dash to an underscore).

So the real name is (and has always been, as far as I can tell) x86-64.

Actually, I'm a bit disgusted at Intel for not even _mentioning_ AMD in
their documentation or their releases, so I'd almost be inclined to rename
the thing as "AMD64" just to give credit where credit is due. However,
it's just not worth the pain and confusion.

Any Intel people on this list: tell your managers to be f*cking ashamed of
themselves. Just because Intel didn't care about their customers and has
been playing with some other 64-bit architecture that nobody wanted to use
is no excuse for not giving credit to AMD for what they did with x86-64.

(I'm really happy Intel finally got with the program, but it's pretty
petty to not even mention AMD in the documentation and try to make it
look like it was all their idea).

Linus

Short, simple, and to the point.

Ouch, and peeps were quick to lynch The Inquirer

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
If all of you want to read the entire email, why didn't any of you idiots look it up?

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> > hmm, so the current x86_64 will be changed to x86-64 or
> will there be x86_64 and x86-64?

No. The filesystem policy _tends_ to be that dashes and spaces are turned
into underscores when used as filenames. Don't ask me why (well, the space
part is obvious, since real spaces tend to be a pain to use on the command
line, but don't ask me why people tend to conver a dash to an underscore).

So the real name is (and has always been, as far as I can tell) x86-64.

Actually, I'm a bit disgusted at Intel for not even _mentioning_ AMD in
their documentation or their releases, so I'd almost be inclined to rename
the thing as "AMD64" just to give credit where credit is due. However,
it's just not worth the pain and confusion.

Any Intel people on this list: tell your managers to be f*cking ashamed of
themselves. Just because Intel didn't care about their customers and has
been playing with some other 64-bit architecture that nobody wanted to use
is no excuse for not giving credit to AMD for what they did with x86-64.

(I'm really happy Intel finally got with the program, but it's pretty
petty to not even mention AMD in the documentation and try to make it
look like it was all their idea).

Linus

Short, simple, and to the point.

Ouch, and peeps were quick to lynch The Inquirer

Yeah, because 30 seconds of research takes away too much f*pping time.

 

[Megatomic]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
If all of you want to read the entire email, why didn't any of you idiots look it up?

Because we all knew that some other idiot would do it for us.

 

[Megatomic]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Yeah, because 30 seconds of research takes away too much f*pping time.

There is no need to f*p when you have a woman.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Megatomic

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
If all of you want to read the entire email, why didn't any of you idiots look it up?

Because we all knew that some other idiot would do it for us.

I was hoping to see something almost intelligent in the thread, but all I found was children whining.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Megatomic

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Yeah, because 30 seconds of research takes away too much f*pping time.

There is no need to f*p when you have a woman.

Ooooh 2 posts in a row in response to mine. leet.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and the other response was funny.

 

[Megatomic]

Now I wonder if the rumors about Prescott chips being X86-64 enabled are true? I don't think I've read anything definitive on the subject yet.

 

[NFS4]

Actually, I'm a bit disgusted at Intel for not even _mentioning_ AMD in
their documentation or their releases, so I'd almost be inclined to rename
the thing as "AMD64" just to give credit where credit is due. However,
it's just not worth the pain and confusion.

I actually downloaded the Intel .pdf white papers and did a search for "AMD" to see if I could find anything last week. I was only "slightly" surprised not to see AMD listed at all.

 

[Eug]

Intel should be ashamed of itself over AMD 64, Torvalds says

And Intel should care, why?

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Eug
And Intel should care, why?

They don't and why should they? This is just the rant of someone inconsequential to Intel. I guess to us though, it's just a different perspective on how Intel delved into x86-64

 

[Dug]

When the hell did rivals start giving credit to each other?
Get a clue Torvalds. The business world isn't as "open" and "sharing" as Linux.

 

[PhlashFoto]

I dont blame Intel for "copying" AMD's tech, since they hav the right to do so due to the cross licensing agreement both companies have. Deep down does it really matter who did what, since eventually both companies bring the features to consumers.

Personally i like Intel, but i dont go all off half c*cked ranting and raving when AMD uses features and accuse them of copying Intel. I thank AMD for forcing Intel to lower prices and push out faster systems. So in the end, we all WIN.

 

[Wingznut]

Do you suppose AMD's whitepapers talk about Intel?
How about Coke and Pepsi... Suppose Pepsi Vanilla gives credit to Coca-Cola?
Crest and Colgate? Who came up with tarter control first, and are they "credited" in the others documents (presuming it's not a legality)?

C'mon people.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Wingznut
Do you suppose AMD's whitepapers talk about Intel?
How about Coke and Pepsi... Suppose Pepsi Vanilla gives credit to Coca-Cola?
Crest and Colgate? Who came up with tarter control first, and are they "credited" in the others documents (presuming it's not a legality)?

C'mon people.

Well, AMD does use SSE and SSE2 without renaming it

That being said, I don't think his comments really amount to much...