Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 5/22/85; site cbosgd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!mark
From: mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton)
Newsgroups: net.lan,net.dcom,net.decus
Subject: Re: ISO layer 4 and up...
Message-ID: <2047@cbosgd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Apr-86 12:10:35 EST
Article-I.D.: cbosgd.2047
Posted: Thu Apr 24 12:10:35 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Apr-86 04:48:26 EST
References: <424@gould9.UUCP> <319@ptsfd.UUCP> <102@ico.UUCP> <326@ptsfd.UUCP> <106@ico.UUCP> <95@petrus.UUCP> <107@ico.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, Oh
Lines: 10
Xref: watmath net.lan:1438 net.dcom:1830 net.decus:308

Sounds like we've got some experts out there who understand FTAM.  Let
me pose a question I've been wondering about for awhile.

How does FTAM compare with network filesystems such as Sun's NFS, AT&T's
RFS, and IBM PC type file service networks?  Is FTAM a suitable replacement
for these systems, or does it do the same thing, just not as well, or is
it strictly an FTP replacement?  Does anyone care to predict the evolution
of remote filesystems as OSI becomes pervasive?

	Mark