Xref: utzoo comp.unix.questions:6303 comp.unix.wizards:7428
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!ulysses!hector!ekrell
From: ekrell@hector.UUCP (Eduardo Krell)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: RFS vs. NFS
Message-ID: <10186@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Date: 28 Mar 88 14:16:18 GMT
References: <326@ivory.SanDiego.NCR.COM> <275@ksr.UUCP> <7556@brl-smoke.ARPA> <4188@chinet.UUCP> <17056@beta.UUCP>
Sender: netnews@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com
Reply-To: ekrell@hector (Eduardo Krell)
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 19

In article <17056@beta.UUCP> hwe@beta.UUCP (Skip Egdorf) writes:

>Naturally RFS preserves full Unix semantics. Why would AT&T
>want to encourage you to use all those VMS Vaxen, Lisp Machines,
>PCs, when they can lock you in with FULL UNIX SEMANTICS?

You're completely missing the point. When I have a network of Suns,
Vaxen and other boxes running UNIX, I DEFINITELY WANT UNIX file
system semantics on remote files. I don't want my programs to
be aware of the fact that the file they're operating on is remote.
This is what is meant by UNIX file system semantics: the behavior
is the same whether the file is local or not. It's called transparency.

And AT&T is not trying to lock you into AT&T products by pushing RFS;
there are a lot of non AT&T boxes running System V Release 3 and RFS.
    
    Eduardo Krell                   AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ

    UUCP: {ihnp4,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell		ARPA: ekrell@ulysses.att.com