Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!VAX.FTP.COM!jbvb
From: jbvb@VAX.FTP.COM (James Van Bokkelen)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc
Subject: Re: NetBIOS v/s NFS
Message-ID: <8903231542.AA05216@vax.ftp.com>
Date: 23 Mar 89 15:42:27 GMT
References: <15732@admin.mips.COM>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 17

The most fundamental issue is one of naming:  NFS naming is unloveable in a
number of ways, but it doesn't require broadcast name defense like NETBIOS
does.  This means that a network of NFS users can easily extend across IP
routers, and links of various different characteristcs, where NETBIOS usually
requires that everyone be on the 'same' LAN cable (bridges allowed).  RFC 1001
and 1002 specify mechanisms which give you a little extra flexibility, but
not enough to compete with Domain Names.

Also "NETBIOS on Unix" is not an easy concept to implement.  People like Syntax
will sell you something with a similar name, but what it really is is a Unix-
based file server for SMB protocols (an even higher layer).  As a programming
interface, NETBIOS is amazingly specific to Intel and DOS.  As such, it isn't
going to replace sockets (or streams) as the way to talk to the network on
Unix hosts.  It is also session-layer protocol, so a PC DBMS vendor would have
to emulate RFC1001 and 1002 on Unix in order to port their product to Unix.

jbvb