On 2/3/21 1:44 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > RHL 7 was the first boxed pointless and the plan was to try and engage > in doing just updates for 1,2,3 but that turned into too much sticking > in the mud compared to other boxed sets which were pushing they were > faster to market than Red Hat Linux. So 8 became its own thing and > then 9, and there were howls of protest from various people who had > built their deployments around X being a major and Y being smaller > changes.. however the kernel and other software were now moving at a > rate where 8 engineers could not keep up with all the packages needed > at different levels. > It's hard to believe it was ever small enough that 8 engineers could keep up at all; we're long past the days when a whole release fit on a single 650MB CD. You guys did a great job in those early days! > > ...A fun fact about Pensacola is, if I > remember correctly, that it carried the MAJOR version of 2.1 through > seven update cycles; ... > > > Yep.. the marketing reason was simple. The general IT manager rule for > large deployments is NEVER deploy software which is 1.x or 2.0 . They > will wait until 2.1 comes out. So like RHL 2.1, there was a RHEL-2.1 > and yep.. people installed it a LOT more than RHEL-3 because it wasn't 3.1 Oh, that is rich! As I recall people were even happier when it hit x.2, the 'real stable' release. It threw everybody off-guard when RHL 7.3 released.... People are funny, no? Explains RHL 6.2E, too. I had often wondered why RHEL 2.1, now I know. Thanks for that!