Xref: utzoo comp.unix.questions:6425 comp.unix.wizards:7580
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!uwvax!umn-d-ub!umn-cs!shamash!rosevax!cimcor!mike
From: mike@cimcor.UUCP (Michael Grenier)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: RFS vs. NFS
Message-ID: <465@cimcor.UUCP>
Date: 2 Apr 88 11:53:25 GMT
References: <4566@megaron.arizona.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Grenier & friends, Forest Lake, MN
Lines: 18

From article <4566@megaron.arizona.edu>, by lm@arizona.edu (Larry McVoy):
> In article <10186@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> ekrell@hector (Eduardo Krell) writes:
>>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.
> 
> Truth in advertising, please.  How about a list of those boxes?  Maybe 
> people will see the light and start to take RFS seriously?

OK, how about any 80386 box running a port of Interactive's Unix which
includes Interactive, Microport, Bell Technologies, etc. This includes
all of those 386 AT clones as well as many Unix workstations such
as the Convergent Server PC (which at 10000 Dhrystones isn't bad).
I've seen support of RFS on the 386 AT clones using the Micom EtherNet boards
and Microport claims to be supporting the Execelan 205T board as well in the
near future.

	Michael Grenier
	{rutgers, amdahl, ihnp4}!bungia!cimcor!mike