Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 11:43:09 +0930 From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> To: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Peeve: why "i386"? Message-ID: <20030607021309.GC86974@wantadilla.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <20030605165217.A388@online.fr> References: <20030605165217.A388@online.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Thursday, 5 June 2003 at 16:52:17 -0400, 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? There's a difference between the i386 architecture, which is still going strong, and the Intel 80386 processor, which is obsolete for normal applications. > Why not call it x86, or ia32, if not in the kernel config then at > least in the release notes and documentation, There are so many places in the sources which use the name that it would be very difficult. And the name is still correct, more correct than x86. > as everyone else has been doing for years? They have? I hadn't noticed. Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+4Uo1IubykFB6QiMRAvkdAJ4hzKB2VXmdrlzA+kJVE+aKpiWucQCfYHLV fRxbgWUthvDR7nhJUqJ/lQU= =WBVB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030607021309.GC86974>