On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 3:23 PM Henry Bent wrote: > On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 at 18:56, Michael Huff wrote: > >> I think I may have found 2.0 on the Internet Archive too. >> https://archive.org/details/cdrom-freebsd-2.0-1 >> >> The dates on the iso are from late November 1994. >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 2:14 PM Warner Losh wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 19, 2023, 3:21 PM Michael Huff wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 5:46 AM Henry Bent >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Where did you get this distribution? The one I could easily find, >>>>> https://archive.org/details/vax-svr2 , has serious filesystem >>>>> problems that can easily be seen by running an fsck on boot. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Speaking of Unix History, following that link led me to a copy of what >>>> I think was the first 4.4BSD-Lite based FreeBSD iso -it's from June 1995. >>>> No big deal *except* that it includes a scan of the cover, something that >>>> looks like an insert and it consists of two cds. I haven't had a chance to >>>> look at the cds yet so I don't know what's on them. >>>> >>>> IMO the scans are the big deal and why I'm posting the link to it here. >>>> Apologies in advance for any lapses in etiquette: >>>> >>>> https://archive.org/details/freebsd-205-b >>>> >>> >>> FreeBSD 2.0.0 was the first Lite based release. This looks to be 2.0.5 >>> which was a 7 months later. >>> >>> https://ftp-archive.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD-Archive/old-releases has >>> all the old releases from 2.0.5 on... >>> >>> Hmmm I think I have the 2.0 cdrom in my basement... >>> >>> Warner >>> >> > These are just the regular Walnut Creek ( > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walnut_Creek_CDROM ) packaged distributions > of free software. Is there a reason that they are considered special or > significant? > > -Henry > Yes. I posted the first one because it included a scan of the packaging and an insert (which I don't think you can find on the FreeBSD archive -though I haven't looked), I posted a link to the second one because it pre-dates the earliest ISO on the FreeBSD archive (2.0 instead of 2.0.5). I thought people would be interested in the first link as an interesting curiosity, and the second one was for any software completists. -Michael