Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!metro!cluster!necisa!boyd
From: boyd@necisa.ho.necisa.oz.au (Boyd Roberts)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: (was slashes, now NFS devices)
Message-ID: <2043@necisa.ho.necisa.oz.au>
Date: 12 Mar 91 01:28:34 GMT
References: <1991Mar9.025601.18479@panix.uucp> <thurlow.668528418@convex.convex.com>
Organization: NEC Information Systems Australia Pty. Ltd.
Lines: 23

In article <thurlow.668528418@convex.convex.com> thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes:
>
>Of course vendors ship implementations.  I contend that there are a
>lot of good implementations of NFS out there, based on testing at
>Connectathon.  If you ever actually *use* NFS sometime, you might
>come to the same conclusion.
>

A good implementation?  Of a totally broken protocol?

NFS is a kludge.  If it was designed to run (predominately) with UNIX
machines, then why oh why doesn't it support UNIX file-system semantics?
The whole point of a file-system is to provide a reliable, predictable
set of semantics.  UNIX file-systems do.  What NFS does is something
entirely different and fundamentally broken.

The uniformity of the the file-system is one of UNIX's great strengths
which gets thrown out the window when you NFS mount something.


Boyd Roberts			boyd@necisa.ho.necisa.oz.au

``When the going gets wierd, the weird turn pro...''