Xref: utzoo comp.os.os2.apps:224 comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc:5986 comp.dcom.lans:8232
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!att!rutgers!mcnc!rock.concert.net!ralph!rbn
From: rbn@ralph.uucp (Bob Boyd)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc,comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: LAN MANAGER Questions.
Message-ID: <1991May29.135716.23961@rock.concert.net>
Date: 29 May 91 13:57:16 GMT
References: <1991May29.062359.29481@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au>
Sender: news@rock.concert.net
Organization: US EPA
Lines: 18

I'm curious.  The original poster on this claimed that PCSA and PC/NFS
aren't "True LAN" implementations.

What are the characteristics of a network client/server/peer architecture
that you believe make it a "True" LAN implementation?

What about these 2 (and others) that you find limiting would have to
be improved on to make them "True"?  What is missing in your opinion?
Which features do they have that others are missing?

One of the most limiting features of most architectures/implementations
that I've been exposed to is the heroic amount of effort required to 
establish "transparent" interoperability with other solutions.
-- 

Bob
rbn@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov
Unisys/EPA