I wonder how many of those are actually still out there. According to Wikipedia, Intel kept making replacement parts (386 and 486) until September 2007, but personally, I have never come across one in actual use. My own career in this field began with an internship in 2008. My day job includes working on a PLC runtime with a code base older than myself, originally written for DOS, but every industrial PC (or other x86 based embedded device) I have ever got to play around with had at the very least a Pentium class CPU in it.
As for the Windows 3.x based industrial equipment: Some industrial devices I have worked on in the past turned out to actually be ARM based, running Linux, but the software went a long way to convincingly fake old Windows style UI or emulate a DOS prompt. I was once tasked to extend such a UI library to faithfully reproduce Windows 98 style color gradient borders.
Only once have I seen an actual embedded 486SX with my own eyes, but not in active use anymore. Last year, someone dragged a dusty, old, weirdo Siemens telephony box to the the local Hackerspace. The box itself had a design language that screamed "Star Trek: Voyager". I found a UART, it was running "On Time RTOS-32" which, according to the German Wikipedia, was an RTOS with a Windows API compatible userspace, developed by a German company in 1996 and discontinued in 2023.
> Some industrial devices I have worked on in the past turned out to actually be ARM based, running Linux, but the software went a long way to convincingly fake old Windows style UI or emulate a DOS prompt. I was once tasked to extend such a UI library to faithfully reproduce Windows 98 style color gradient borders.
IBM mainframes have an embedded PC (the "Support Element") used to manage the hardware configuration and diagnostics. Originally, it ran OS/2. In 2005, IBM replaced it with Linux–running a UI which looked like OS/2. (At some point more recently, they refreshed the visual look so it doesn't look like OS/2 any more, although I'm not sure when they did that.)
Pedantically, they're wrong, but the two are closely related.
They both use the parent's hash together with the contents of the block/changes in the commit to compute hash of the current block/commit.
Git supports many parallel branches, while Blockchain uses decentralized consensus mechanisms to keep the entire network in agreement and resolve branches as soon as possible. So yes, the mathematical problems in the two are different, but the data structure is very similar.
Source: my last job was creating developer toolsuits for Blockchain.
Y'all love to pretend blockchain is important and useful for all kinds of things. Just stop. It's shady to try to take credit for anything good in the hope that some of the goodwill rubs off on blockchain.
Git predates Bitcoin. It is also useful and efficient, things blockchain is not.
You cannot claim everything that uses hashes is a fucking blockchain, it's ridiculous.