Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!exodus!appserv!sun!amdcad!brahms!phil
From: phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.nfs
Subject: Re: Sun PC-NFS deficiencies
Message-ID: <1991Mar16.055414.26333@amd.com>
Date: 16 Mar 91 05:54:14 GMT
References: <1991Mar14.202556.6734@phri.nyu.edu> <1991Mar15.075917.1547@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> <1?*=6K{@rpi.edu>
Sender: usenet@amd.com (NNTP Posting)
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc; Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 74

In article <1?*=6K{@rpi.edu> barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) writes:
|This has been by far the most prolific and interesting bit of network
|discussion I have seen on Usenet. I have only been reading it for a month
|or two, do these sort of flare ups occur regularly?

Not really, it seems to be my fault. Most of the participants here are
unix-philes, proud to be ignorant of PCs. I am, I think, a rare person
who uses both Unix and PCs and likes them both.

|None-the-less, for Phil (who must own stock in Novell and HP)

Nope, no stock in either one. Are you implying these two companies'
products are of such low quality that only someone with a vested
interest would speak favorably of them?

|I repeat: Volume of sales does not equate to 
|industry standard. There are defacto standards (i.e. equated to volume of
|sales) and there are industry standards (i.e. equated to RFC's). RFC's
|provide sufficient technical detail for any two vendors to develop and
|distribute compatible (i.e. standard) products to the extent that they
|conform to the "minimum" standards documented in the relavent RFC's.

Since there are so many products which support Novell, it must
qualify as both a defacto standard and an industry standard.

|It dedicated less than 5% of space to "declarations" pertaining
|to compatibility with Novell's proprietary fantastically popular PC-centric

Maybe they assume customers will take that for granted?

|product. IMHO, it appears that Novell is targeting LAN WorkPlace to everyone
|(else) who hasn't bought into their proprietary PC-centric LAN solution.

I wonder what you would make of MIPS co's offering of Portable Netware.

|My guess is that Novell's rate of growth within their original market niche
|has dropped off tremendously (i.e. saturation?) and they realize that      
|Unix-philes have about as much disdain for a PC-centric solution (standard
|or not) as you (and other PC-centric types) have for Unix/non-PC solutions.
|Also consider that TCP/IP is very well entrenched outside of the PC market
|place (as much if not more than Novell is entrenched within the PC market

I sense a not so subtle message that since Novell is moving to support
TCP, it's ok for Sun to offer a crippled PC networking solution and
claim it's Windows compatible when it is more Windows tolerant. I
don't really follow the logic behind this.

|Finally, its seems like wasted effort, making heated and inflammatory
|statements about any given solution. Most of us realize and willingly

Oh, did I inflame you? By pointing out Sun PC-NFS's deficencies?
You don't have to listen. Do you own stock in Sun?

|recognize the value of Novell and its PC-centric solution. Many realize
|that Novell is making all due effort (to the extent that the profit
|motive is sufficient) to broaden its scope of applicability. It should be

Ah, this must prove that TCP/IP is THE RIGHT WAY.

|similarly recognized that non-PC-centric solutions coming from Novell
|are new to the market and may or may not be Novell's (except by aquisition).

But Novell is THE WRONG COMPANY to buy TCP/IP from.

|Newer products tend to be less stable than more mature products, and as
|such this should also be considered in any evaluation process. Sun PC-NFS (tm)
|and Sun are not perfect either. NFS in general has its strengths, not 
|least of which is its maturity in a non-PC environment.

You're using the IBM FUD very well.

--
The government is not your mother.
The government doesn't love you.