Xref: utzoo comp.os.os2.apps:228 comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc:6031 comp.dcom.lans:8251
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!brolga!ant
From: ant@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Anthony Murdoch)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc,comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: LAN MANAGER Questions.
Message-ID: <1991May31.114125.25264@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au>
Date: 31 May 91 11:41:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: brolga.1991May31.114125.25264
References: <1991May29.062359.29481@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au> <1991May29.135716.23961@rock.concert.net>
Organization: Prentice Computer Centre, The University of Queensland, Australia.
Lines: 26

rbn@ralph.uucp (Bob Boyd) writes:

>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?

I guess it depends on what you expect out of a LAN.  Things like PCSA and
PCNFS are designed to provide connectivity from you PC to some non-PC (ie
mini or above) computer (ie PCNFS to UNIX host/servers and PCSA to VMS
host/servers)

I see a LAN as something that provides PC-PC connectivity, as well as
PC-(big machine) connectivity.  I guess my ideals are approaching a
distributed network (everyone can access everything).

I have to thank everyone for the answers provided, though one thing
worries me.  Some of the answers have completely different answers.

ant

  V   ant                       "I killed Laura Palmer"
 \o/  ant@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au
 -O-  Anthony Murdoch           Prentice Centre
 /0\  Phone (07) 36 54078       University of Qld