Peeve: why "i386"?

[Rahul Siddharthan]

Terry Lambert said on Jun  6, 2003 at 00:56:16:
> 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?
> 
> I believe the primary reason is the directories named "i386"
> in various places that, were they renamed, would require a
> repo-copy in order to maintain proper modification history
> information, 

Yes, I'm not suggesting renaming them.  Others (including linux) use
i386 internally,  for similar reasons I imagine, but the distributors
don't call it that in their release notes (you know, the stuff meant for
the general public, newcomers, management, etc, not necessarily people
who read freebsd-current). 

Most people even today only know windows, have only foggy ideas of
linux, and don't know BSD at all.  I don't see why we should further
confuse them with talk of i386.

R