Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!strath-cs!baird!jim
From: jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: (was slashes, now NFS devices)
Message-ID: <JIM.91Feb27112312@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk>
Date: 27 Feb 91 11:23:12 GMT
References: <thurlow.666756073@convex.convex.com> <15236@smoke.brl.mil>
	<123382@uunet.UU.NET> <1991Feb22.141910.17013@decuac.dec.com>
	<BZS.91Feb22163556@world.std.com> <14363@ulysses.att.com>
	<FWP1.91Feb23160240@Jester.CC.MsState.Edu> <14367@ulysses.att.com>
Sender: jim@cs.strath.ac.uk
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Glasgow, Scotland.
Lines: 9
In-reply-to: ekrell@ulysses.att.com's message of 24 Feb 91 19:30:59 GMT

In article <14367@ulysses.att.com> ekrell@ulysses.att.com (Eduardo Krell) writes:

   RFS is a distributed Unix filesystem and guarantees Unix semantics
   on remote files.

How can it do this if the RFS client and server don't agree on the
number of bits in the major and minor device numbers? Just curious.

		Jim