Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 18:12:29 -0400 From: Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com> To: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Peeve: why "i386"? Message-ID: <3EDFC04D.4080203@potentialtech.com> In-Reply-To: <20030605180040.A562@online.fr> References: <20030605180040.A562@online.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rahul Siddharthan wrote: > Bill Moran wrote: >>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? Why not call it x86, or ia32, if not in the kernel config then >>>at least in the release notes and documentation, as everyone else has >>>been doing for years? >> >>If it's that important to you, you're welcome to find all the places in >>the source and doc that it's used, correct them and submit patches. > > Are you a committer, in particular a committer responsible for this? > In other words, can your response be taken in any way as "official"? No. > I wouldn't mind submitting patches to the doc project, if someone in > charge of this asks. But obviously I can't submit patches for > something like the release notes and publicity material of FreeBSD 5.1 > (which is what I'm really talking about). I misunderstood. I read your original post to be referring to the docs and code and things like the kernel config file. Why it's still used in publicity material, I don't know. And to your unwritten complaint. Yes, that last answer was snippy. I apologize. -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3EDFC04D.4080203>