Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 09:48:41 -0400 From: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> To: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Peeve: why "i386"? Message-ID: <20030607134841.GA13998@online.fr> In-Reply-To: <20030607021309.GC86974@wantadilla.lemis.com> References: <20030605165217.A388@online.fr> <20030607021309.GC86974@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greg 'groggy' Lehey said on Jun 7, 2003 at 11:43:09: > > 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. If you really believe that (i386 is "more correct" than x86), the front page of http://www.FreeBSD.org should be changed too -- the first line there refers to "x86 compatible... architectures" (unlike every other FreeBSD document I've seen). Let's at least be consistent... Whoever wrote the front page recognised that many newcomers will read "i386" as a pessimisation (eg, will imagine that it doesn't support Pentium-specific optimisations or newer instructions, MMX, SSE etc). Perhaps the same person tried to change some of the docs / release notes templates and failed, or didn't try because he foresaw the reaction ("if other people don't know what we mean by i386 architecture, that's their problem"). R
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030607134841.GA13998>