Xref: utzoo comp.unix.questions:6247 comp.unix.wizards:7364 comp.arch:4076 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!pyramid!voder!apple!jk From: jk@Apple.COM (John Kullmann) Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.wizards,comp.arch Subject: Re: RFS vs. NFS Message-ID: <7782@apple.Apple.Com> Date: 25 Mar 88 18:07:05 GMT References: <326@ivory.SanDiego.NCR.COM> <7765@apple.Apple.Com> <7533@brl-smoke.ARPA> Reply-To: jk@apple.UUCP (John Kullmann) Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA Lines: 27 In article <7533@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) ) writes: >In article <7765@apple.Apple.Com> jk@apple.UUCP (John Kullmann) writes: >>The key difference between NFS and RFS is: >> Everyone wants and uses NFS and no one wants or uses RFS. > >Funny, I thought the difference was that RFS is NFS done right. Sorry Doug, 'rightness' does not enter into it. We got RFS working at Opus Systems, proudly demo'd it to all our key customers, etc. etc., and every single one of them said "gee, that's nice. when can I get NFS...". I have heard this story from others too. In the thousands and thousands of systems shipped not a single customer wanted RFS. By the way, I happen to agree with your points about UID probs, etc. and could throw in a few of my own, like remote device access but I still think that it doesnt matter how neat, functionally correct, etc. etc. something is if no one wants it. disclaimer: I am no longer at Opus Systems and nothing I might or might not say can be attributed to anyone but myself. so there! -- John Kullmann Apple Computer Inc. Voice: 408-973-2939 Fax: 408-973-6489