Xref: utzoo comp.os.minix:8070 comp.protocols.nfs:550
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!grebyn!escom!al
From: al@escom.com (Al Donaldson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix,comp.protocols.nfs
Subject: Re: NFS service
Summary: why not Amoeba?
Message-ID: <500@escom.com>
Date: 23 Nov 89 17:32:09 GMT
References: <752@crash.cts.com>
Organization: ESCOM Corp., Oakton, VA
Lines: 19

jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes:
>  thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes:
>  >...  Further, RPC, on which NFS is based, can
>  >be had in the public domain, which removes a lot of the nasty work.
> The moral to the story is "why reinvent the wheel?"  ...

I'm just now starting to read the background papers on Amoeba,
but it seems to me there's been a lot of work done there to provide
the same kind of capability you're asking for, i.e., remote files.
Why not use Amoeba networking *instead of* NFS (see recent postings 
on Suns, etc), or use Amoeba RPC as a base for NFS?   

I apologize if the answer is entirely obvious to others -- if so,
please give me the page reference in "Computer Networks".  :-)

Al Donaldson

"No birds, no bees. No flowers, no trees.  No wonder, november."
	-- Benny Hill