Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!bu-cs!bloom-beacon!apple!bbn!bbn.com!pineapple.bbn.com!barr
From: barr@pineapple.bbn.com (Hunter Barr)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: Tired C programmer (Really configuration files)
Message-ID: <1718@papaya.bbn.com>
Date: 8 May 89 19:17:46 GMT
References: <1989Apr30.183925.19847@cs.rochester.edu> <656@pitstop.West.Sun.COM> <2308@perseus.sw.mcc.com>
Sender: news@bbn.com
Distribution: na
Organization: BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation
Lines: 47

In article <2308@perseus.sw.mcc.com> rcp@perseus.sw.mcc.com (Rob Pettengill) writes:
>In article <656@pitstop.West.Sun.COM> rvollum@sun.com (Rob Vollum) writes:
>;In article <1989Apr30.183925.19847@cs.rochester.edu> miller@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU (Brad Miller) writes:
>;
>;>Actually, I'd say it's more sophisticated: the lispms employ "transparent
>;>networking" which is considerably more efficient than UNIX. editing/copying
>;>a file on the lispm, e.g. from the INTERNET is (for the user) the same as
>;>editing copying locally. You don't run FTP, then copy the file, then edit
>;>it... and that's a trivial example.
>;
>;I'm sorry, but I've got to disagree here. While LispM networking may be more
>;convenient than FTP, it is definitely not transparent -- you've still got

...

>Try again ... the lisp machine supports logical pathname hosts.  A
>logical host allows an arbitrary mapping of directories and files,
>into a logical file structure independent of host, file system,
>network type, and network protocol.
...


The LispM supporters are right about one thing-- remote file access is
more transparent and MUCH easier on the LispM.  I have had the
experience of setting up NFS directories, and the Unix idea of one
file system shadowing another is brain-damaged.  The LispM style
                machinename:/usr/barr/...
is easier and more often consistent with reality than
                /nfs/machinename/usr/barr/...

NFS is trying to solve something that LispMs don't worry about: file
protection.  With LispMs you can just assume that the underlying
protocol is FTP, and do whatever you would do to protect your files
from random FTP access.  This is crude, but easy to use and effective.
NFS is striving for (but has yet to achieve) an improvement on this.
I doubt if LispMs will ever attempt real file protection, and will make
only minimal effort to support file systems that do, like NFS.

NFS should try the LispM system of teaching each machine about
different kinds of hosts, and having the ability to define new ones
easily.  If anyone says that is too much work for the implementors of
NFS, then I'll ask, "What is the main purpose of NFS-- to make things
easy for the implementor?  To minimize the load on the processors? Or
maybe, just maybe, to make it easy for the people using it?

                            ______
                            HUNTER