Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!mit-eddie!apollo!mishkin From: mishkin@apollo.uucp (Nathaniel Mishkin) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards,comp.unix.questions,comp.bugs.sys5 Subject: Re: Remote File Sharing (RFS) - SVR3 Message-ID: <32684023.809c@apollo.uucp> Date: Fri, 9-Jan-87 16:30:05 EST Article-I.D.: apollo.32684023.809c Posted: Fri Jan 9 16:30:05 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 10-Jan-87 01:51:16 EST References: <261@unixprt.UUCP> <371@oblio.UUCP> <43052@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV> Reply-To: mishkin@apollo.UUCP (Nathaniel Mishkin) Organization: Apollo Computer, Chelmsford, MA Lines: 20 Keywords: RFS, SVR3 Summary: Technical arguments don't always seem to matter Xref: mnetor comp.unix.wizards:550 comp.unix.questions:584 comp.bugs.sys5:21 In article <43052@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV> mo@beno.CSS.GOV.UUCP (Mike O'Dell) writes: > >Sorry guys, RFS is dead meat. Until you have managed a large collection >of machines, you do not understand the importance of stateless servers, >filesystem semantics be damned (in point of fact, they aren't damaged >very much at all, much hoopla to the contrary). This is an interesting (and probably correct) argument. But it's not clear that people will understand or act upon it. For example, I could state: Until you have managed a network of 100+ machines, you do not understand the importance of not having to explicitly mount a file system before you can access it. This argument has not always had the effect I might have wished :-) -- Nat Mishkin Apollo Computer Inc. apollo!mishkin