From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 5 13:52:21 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D35B37B401 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 13:52:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from papagena.rockefeller.edu (papagena.rockefeller.edu [129.85.41.71]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CB3443FAF for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 13:52:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rsidd@papagena.rockefeller.edu) Received: (from rsidd@localhost) by papagena.rockefeller.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55KqHr00396 for chat@freebsd.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:52:17 -0400 Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:52:17 -0400 From: Rahul Siddharthan To: chat@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20030605165217.A388@online.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i X-Operating-System: Linux 2.4.9-12smp i686 Subject: Peeve: why "i386"? X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 20:52:21 -0000 Why do all the BSDs continue to refer to the 32 bit Intel architecture as i386 even when they typically won't even install on an i386 any more? Why not call it x86, or ia32, if not in the kernel config then at least in the release notes and documentation, as everyone else has been doing for years? I personally find "i386" ugly and antiquated-sounding; many people find it confusing and misleading. (Yes I know it's come up on the lists before. I haven't seen any good answers though, "for historical reasons" isn't a good answer.) R