Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:27:35 +0100 From: gregoryd.freebsd@free.fr To: Marc Fonvieille <blackend@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: docs/119536: a few typos in French handbook (basics) Message-ID: <1200036455.47871a67e2639@imp.free.fr> In-Reply-To: <200801101950.m0AJo3uX031647@freefall.freebsd.org> References: <200801101950.m0AJo3uX031647@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Marc Fonvieille <blackend@FreeBSD.org>: > It's not really the objective of the footnote. The text is about the > fact that even you are not using a 386 CPU (for example a 486 or a > Pentium) you are still using an i386 architecture. Oh. OK. Then I totally missed that one :-( (sorry) Rereading the footnote with that in mind, I can see the true meaning. But I still do find it a little bit misleading: shouldn't we explicit the fact that we are talking about newer versions of an x86 CPU ? Either by emphasizing the "386" word, or saying something like "even if you are running FreBSD on a newer x86, such as a pentium, this is going to be i386.." Might not a reader with another architecture altogether think, reading the sentence "even if you are not running FreeBSD on an Intel 386 CPU, this is going to be i386", that "i386" should appear even if she is using a sparc, or whatever ? Of course I may very well be the only one to misread that kind of info ;-) (in which case, just ignore my remarks) gregory
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1200036455.47871a67e2639>