From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 6 06:35:28 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 2349337B401 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 06:35:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from turkey.mail.pas.earthlink.net (turkey.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.126]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A4FF43F85 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 06:35:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rsidd@online.fr) Received: from user-0cev158.cable.mindspring.com ([24.239.132.168] helo=greenrondo.a.la.turk) by turkey.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19OHNP-0000OO-00 for chat@freebsd.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 06:35:27 -0700 Received: (qmail 9525 invoked by uid 1002); 6 Jun 2003 13:35:28 -0000 Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:35:28 -0400 From: Rahul Siddharthan To: Terry Lambert Message-ID: <20030606133528.GA9414@online.fr> References: <20030605165217.A388@online.fr> <3EE04920.7B8EA51F@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3EE04920.7B8EA51F@mindspring.com> X-Operating-System: Linux 2.4.20 i686 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 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: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 13:35:28 -0000 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