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
--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 There's a difference between the i386 architecture, which is still going strong, and the Intel 80386 processor, which is obsolete for normal applications.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--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030607021309.GC86974>