On 2/4/21 4:54 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: > 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! Down the memory lane: https://imgur.com/a/e427iy0 Used since spring of 2000 when a Redhater gifted it to me.