Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mo From: mo@seismo.CSS.GOV (Mike O'Dell) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards,comp.unix.questions,comp.bugs.sys5 Subject: Re: Remote File Sharing (RFS) - SVR3 Message-ID: <43052@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV> Date: Sun, 4-Jan-87 12:08:25 EST Article-I.D.: beno.43052 Posted: Sun Jan 4 12:08:25 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 4-Jan-87 21:48:16 EST References: <261@unixprt.UUCP> <371@oblio.UUCP> Sender: news@seismo.CSS.GOV Reply-To: mo@beno.CSS.GOV.UUCP (Mike O'Dell) Organization: Center for Seismic Studies, Arlington, VA Lines: 24 Keywords: RFS, SVR3 Xref: mnetor comp.unix.wizards:492 comp.unix.questions:518 comp.bugs.sys5:12 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). Many small Unibox vendors will support RFS since they get it for free with SVR3, but there is also a good NFS port to SVR3 available, too (see Lachman associates). The simple fact is that over 150 different Unix system vendors and builders have *already* gone with NFS, and MANY of those folks ship SysV boxes. Even more importantly, with servers for other operating systems (DEC and IBM) either available or coming, the arguments are even more compelling. Which do you think will sell more computers? Being able to share files between 3B2's, or between VAXes (VMS&UNIX),IBM 3090's, PC's, Macintoshes, and a host of Uniboxes?? Rumor has it that AT&T privately admits they will probably be forced to support NFS because of its commanding lead. Believe what you wish. Faith is a terrible thing to waste. -Mike O'Dell