Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!eci386!woods
From: woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att
Subject: Re: 3B2/600 questions
Message-ID: <1989Nov23.175015.11268@eci386.uucp>
Date: 23 Nov 89 17:50:15 GMT
References: <367@ai.etl.army.mil> <1989Nov15.155346.25197@eci386.uucp> <1262@atha.AthabascaU.CA>
Reply-To: woods@eci386.UUCP (Greg A. Woods)
Organization: R. H. Lathwell Associates: Elegant Communications, Inc.
Lines: 31

In article <1262@atha.AthabascaU.CA> rwa@cs.AthabascaU.CA (Ross Alexander) writes:
> In article <1989Nov15.155346.25197@eci386.uucp> woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods) writes:
> >In article <367@ai.etl.army.mil> mike@ai.etl.army.mil (Mike McDonnell) writes:
> >> 3. RFS comes with the computer.  Is NFS available from somewhere?
> >Why would you want it?  :-)
> 
> I see the smiley, so you're somewhat off the hook.  Somewhat.

:-) :-) :-)

One reason I joke about this is, as you say, RFS is not readily
available, and has known problems in heterogeneous environments.

However, from the less pragmatic side, I would like to see RFS
marketed, improved, and used, because of the tremendous advantages
this would bring.  We all complain about NFS, but does anyone *DO*
anything about it?  Not that I've seen.  Most of the good distributed
filesystems are still in the research phase.  At least with RFS, we
have some very useful features available to a reasonably large domain
of users (don't forget the 386 and friends).  Now if only we quit
bitching about it to each other, and forced our vendors to make it
usable, we'd get somewhere.

I certainly don't want to have to wait for Plan 9 to reach the
marketplace before we get elegant, and coherent, distributed systems.
-- 
						Greg A. Woods

woods@{eci386,gate,robohack,ontmoh,tmsoft,gpu.utcs.UToronto.CA,utorgpu.BITNET}
+1-416-443-1734 [h]  +1-416-595-5425 [w]    VE3-TCP	Toronto, Ontario CANADA