Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:35:28 -0400 From: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Peeve: why "i386"? Message-ID: <20030606133528.GA9414@online.fr> In-Reply-To: <3EE04920.7B8EA51F@mindspring.com> References: <20030605165217.A388@online.fr> <3EE04920.7B8EA51F@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert said on Jun 6, 2003 at 00:56:16: > Rahul Siddharthan wrote: > > 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 believe the primary reason is the directories named "i386" > in various places that, were they renamed, would require a > repo-copy in order to maintain proper modification history > information, Yes, I'm not suggesting renaming them. Others (including linux) use i386 internally, for similar reasons I imagine, but the distributors don't call it that in their release notes (you know, the stuff meant for the general public, newcomers, management, etc, not necessarily people who read freebsd-current). Most people even today only know windows, have only foggy ideas of linux, and don't know BSD at all. I don't see why we should further confuse them with talk of i386. R
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030606133528.GA9414>