Xref: utzoo comp.protocols.nfs:1908 comp.windows.ms:10100
Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!mcsun!ukc!vision!ukpoit!ian
From: ian@ukpoit.co.uk (Ian Spare)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.nfs,comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Sun PC-NFS deficiencies
Message-ID: <1991Mar9.120940.23851@ukpoit.co.uk>
Date: 9 Mar 91 12:09:40 GMT
References: <1991Mar7.185009.27239@amd.com>
Reply-To: ian@ukpoit.co.uk (Ian Spare)
Organization: iT - The Information Technology Business Of The Post Office
Lines: 28

In article <1991Mar7.185009.27239@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>With Sun's release of PC-NFS 3.5, it appears that their product still
>does not come close to what PC networking should be. Can you chose

I accept that products such as novell ( and why not also mention 3-com , lan-
manager etc ) may appear superior to SUN-PCNFS ( and why not mention FTP's 
version ) but I would point out that far too much of the time user are
being sold all-singing/dancing netowrks for PC's which they don't need.

Novell et al give a good front-end to PC-LANS but you have to ask whether
thats what you really need , I have a suspicion that in many cases users
may get better value for money and increased funcionality from a 
multi-user box running some graphic terminals, Unix with X-terminals seems
to be 'only game in town' as far as this goes.

Before the entire world sends me mail about their novell/3-com/lan-mgr
netowrk let me stress I only belive a proportion of PC LANS are
not required NOT all of them !!!

Ian


* This is , of course, my own opinion and not the policy of the Post Office *

-- 
Ian Spare , iT , Barker Lane , CHESTERFIELD , DERBYS , S40 1DY , GREAT BRITAIN

   E-mail : ian@ukpoit.uucp - VOICE : +44 246 214296 - FAX : +44 246 214353