Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!convex!thurlow From: thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals Subject: Re: (was slashes, now NFS devices) Message-ID: Date: 17 Mar 91 02:52:34 GMT References: <1991Mar9.025601.18479@panix.uucp> <2043@necisa.ho.necisa.oz.au> Sender: news@convex.com (news access account) Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx. Lines: 19 Nntp-Posting-Host: dhostwo.convex.com In <2043@necisa.ho.necisa.oz.au> boyd@necisa.ho.necisa.oz.au (Boyd Roberts) writes: >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? I don't think it can. I know I can't unplug local disk and get correct behaviour from our Unix kernel. I wish I could. I don't know of too many differences in NFS behaviour that don't trace to this problem, other than the implementation bugs I know we have to fix. >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. Then don't do remote mounts. Or let's talk about real bugs. Or invent something that can do what you want. Rob T -- Rob Thurlow, thurlow@convex.com An employee and not a spokesman for Convex Computer Corp., Dallas, TX