Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail
From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: IP (was: DMA is obsolete)
Date: Sat, 3 May 2025 16:52:56 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID: <vv5hl8$6k0$1@reader1.panix.com>
References: <vuj131$fnu$1@gal.iecc.com> <jwvcycp3gfc.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org> <vv5buh$3ps1q$1@dont-email.me> <vv5dnq$si6$1@gal.iecc.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 3 May 2025 16:52:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80";
	logging-data="6784"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Bytes: 2289
Lines: 31

In article <vv5dnq$si6$1@gal.iecc.com>, John Levine  <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>According to Thomas Koenig  <tkoenig@netcologne.de>:
>>> FWIW, I hate this terminology which comes from "intellectual
>>> property" since it insists on the value of this only as
>>> a bargaining/power tool rather than for what it actually performs.
>>
>>It is also a bit misleading. Where I come from, "intellectual
>>property" refers to patents.
>
>Where I come from it also means copyright and trademarks.
>
>I agree that if it's a building block or a core, call it that.

You don't have to like the terminology, but that's what is used
across the field.  Sorry if it's uncomfortable, and to be honest
I don't care for it much myself, but them's the breaks.  That's
what AMD calls them, so if we're discussing AMD hardware, it
makes sense to use their terminology.

People in construction probably hate that computer people call
things "blocks" that aren't made of concrete.  I'm sure the
networking people don't like it when the hardware people refer
to "IPs" because of the obvious conflict with TCP/IP.  I'm sure
auto mechanics don't like it when mathematicians talk about
"manifolds" that have nothing to do with car engines.

Ambiguities in terminology abound across fields.  But insisting
that someone not use more or less standard terminology because
it conflicts with something in another field is silly.

	- Dan C.