Peeve: why "i386"?

[Rahul Siddharthan]

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"?

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).

Rahul