Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!nuchat!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals Subject: Re: (was slashes, now NFS devices) Message-ID: Date: 11 Mar 91 23:18:35 GMT References: <468@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> <147163@pyramid.pyramid.com> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 24 In article <147163@pyramid.pyramid.com> mre@pyrps5.pyramid.com (Mike Eisler) writes: > In article peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >In article <468@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> lm@slovax.Eng.Sun.COM (Larry McVoy) writes: > >> Nobody, including RFS, has ever come up with networked devices in any > >> sort of general fashion. > >Intel's OpenNET seems to do a pretty good job of it. Consider (bridge is > >running System V/386, xds13 is running Xenix/286): > Larry said "general". RFS is capable of doing Intel to Intel transactions > as well as anything. However can OpenNet perform device accesses between > 386's and Sparcs? No, but it *can* do it between DOS and Unix or Xenix. And it can do it between VAX/VMS and UNIX or Xenix. I've never run it from DOS to VMS. (i.e., I presume the point your making is that it's not Open if it's limited to intel. Last I heard intel didn't make VAXes. They don't necessarily make the CPUs in random DOS machines, either, but that's a nit-pick. In any case if they can run it on DOS they should certainly not have any difficulty with SunOS.) -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"