Peeve: why "i386"?

[Bill Moran]

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