Information on ubuntu.com/certification entries is confusing

[Jeff Lane ]

This was originally a question that seems to warrant a bug:

"I would like to ask if the Ubuntu 64-bit PC (x86_64) means the Desktop Edition? I've scrolled in the certification section for Dell PowerEdge T610 and it has the Ubuntu 64-bit PC (x86_64) as certified. Does it means that I can install the Ubuntu 10.10 (64 bit) Desktop Edition onto the Dell PowerEdge T610?"

The verbage that the user sees for all systems is:

The $NAME has been awarded the status of Certified on Ubuntu (64bit|32bit) PC (x86_64|x86).

This seems a bit confusing as it indicates all servers are tested with "Ubuntu PC"?? And PC is synonymous with Desktops and Laptops these days... so it's not difficult to see where an user could draw the assumption that we are certifying desktop edition on Servers.

[Jeff Lane  (bladernr)]

To be clear, I think the verbage displayed on Ubuntu.com/certification should be changed to something like hte following:

The $MAKE $MODEL has been awarded the status of Certified on Ubuntu (Desktop|Server) (64bit|32bit)

[Ara Pulido (ara)]

+1

I was about to file the exact same bug.

[Marc Tardif (cr3)]

Many moons ago, I discussed naming conventions for the architecture with the marketing folks. My argument was that it should respect the same convention as the names on cdimage.ubuntu.com, ie amd64. Their argument was that it should respect the convention on the www.ubuntu.com download page, ie x86_64. This was a very good reason considering most visitors should be expected to download from the www.ubuntu.com website rather than directly from cdimage.ubuntu.com. Since then, it seems that the naming convention on www.ubuntu.com has changed and now mentions "32-bit" and "64-bit" (note the dash, I'm very picky about these things). So, we should definately follow the same convention and we might even want to take this opportunity to have the releases linked from the ubuntu.com/certification pages to the corresponding www.ubuntu.com download pages.

[Jeff Lane  (bladernr)]

the whole amd64 thing is a pet peeve of mine... initially there was amd64 and EM64T from Intel. Like the Beta/VHS or HD-DVD/Blu-ray wars, one had to lose, and it was Intel that lost out in the end, but ultimately the term x86_64 is more apropos as it is a generic descriptor or x86 with 64bit memory extensions. amd64 is an instruction set, not an architecture.

In any case, that's just me griping. These days, it would be more marketing friendly if we simply used the terms 32-Bit and 64-Bit for things like websites. I've heard before questions like "Can I run amd64 on my computer? I have an Intel processor, not an AMD one"

So that's my +1 for simply stating 32/64-Bit (hyphen included)

[David Murphy (schwuk)]

This has be (accidentally) addressed as part of https://bugs.launchpad.net/certify-web/+bug/814190.