Xref: utzoo comp.unix.questions:6565 comp.unix.wizards:7778
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!umd5!uvaarpa!mcnc!rti!trt
From: trt@rti.UUCP (Thomas Truscott)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: RFS vs. NFS
Message-ID: <2181@rti.UUCP>
Date: 14 Apr 88 16:00:23 GMT
References: <326@ivory.SanDiego.NCR.COM> <275@ksr.UUCP> <7556@brl-smoke.ARPA> <1053@mcgill-vision.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, RTP, NC
Lines: 15

In article <1053@mcgill-vision.UUCP>, mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) writes:
> 
> > Consider RTI's Freedomnet, which RTI advertises as supporting full
> > UNIX file system semantics.  However, if program foo physically
> > resides on a remote machine, typing foo causes foo to run on the
> > remote machine.
> 
> This is `transparent' if, and only if, foo would also run on the remote
> machine after copying it to some local filesystem.

Yes, as I explained previously, if foo is the wrong binary type
for the machine where it resides then it is copy/executed elsewhere.
We implemented that ("misplaced execution") over three years ago.
Once you have true remote execution this sort of thing
is fairly straightforward.
	Tom Truscott