From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 6 19:13:14 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 6A81637B401 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:13:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wantadilla.lemis.com (wantadilla.lemis.com [192.109.197.80]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC30343FA3 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:13:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from grog@lemis.com) Received: by wantadilla.lemis.com (Postfix, from userid 1004) id D1835527A7; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 11:43:09 +0930 (CST) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 11:43:09 +0930 From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey To: Rahul Siddharthan Message-ID: <20030607021309.GC86974@wantadilla.lemis.com> References: <20030605165217.A388@online.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="CblX+4bnyfN0pR09" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030605165217.A388@online.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: The FreeBSD Project Phone: +61-8-8388-8286 Fax: +61-8-8388-8725 Mobile: +61-418-838-708 WWW-Home-Page: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ X-PGP-Fingerprint: 9A1B 8202 BCCE B846 F92F 09AC 22E6 F290 507A 4223 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: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 02:13:14 -0000 --CblX+4bnyfN0pR09 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 There's a difference between the i386 architecture, which is still going strong, and the Intel 80386 processor, which is obsolete for normal applications.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,=20 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 --CblX+4bnyfN0pR09 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+4Uo1IubykFB6QiMRAvkdAJ4hzKB2VXmdrlzA+kJVE+aKpiWucQCfYHLV fRxbgWUthvDR7nhJUqJ/lQU= =WBVB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --CblX+4bnyfN0pR09--