Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 12:54:17 -0400 From: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> To: Paul Robinson <paul@iconoplex.co.uk> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Peeve: why "i386"? Message-ID: <20030606125417.A3489@online.fr>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Paul Robinson wrote: > The MD of a local company is not likely to want to > know how to re-build his kernel, Typical stupid red-herring answer one gets. I already said more than once that I'm referring to things like release notes and press information. FreeBSD: http://www.freebsd.org/releases/4.8R/announce.html FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE supports the i386 and alpha architectures... Distributions for the i386 are available now. [no mention whatever of better-than-i386 processors] Debian (to take a random example): http://www.debian.org/ports/ Intel x86 / IA-32 (``i386'')... Linux was originally developed for the Intel 386 processors, hence the short name. Debian supports all IA-32 processors, made by Intel, AMD, Cyrix and other manufacturers. Now, which sounds better and more meaningful? And what exactly is the harm with going the Debian way in this respect? R
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030606125417.A3489>