Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!hi-csc!giebelhaus
From: giebelhaus@hi-csc.UUCP (Timothy R. Giebelhaus)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: //host vs "mount point"
Message-ID: <38c15248.4580@hi-csc.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 28-Nov-87 19:38:00 EST
Article-I.D.: hi-csc.38c15248.4580
Posted: Sat Nov 28 19:38:00 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 1-Dec-87 01:41:37 EST
References: <648@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <1668@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <12122@think.UUCP>
Organization: Honeywell CSDD, Golden Valley, MN
Lines: 24
Summary: issues

There seem to be two issues: 1) the place the mounts take place and 2)
the method and the functionality of the mount.  

I like the // mount because it places my machine at the same level as
all the rest of the machines on the network.  My machine is //lime which
while I am on my machine is also /.  I could place my machine in with
the other mounts in /n/lime which would be a link to / on my machine,
but I'm too lazy to place links on all my machines.  Not much of a difference,
though.

What I really like is the method and the functionality of the mount.  I
put the name of the machine in the name server (ns) and then all machines
can access it.  The mount seems to be dynamic and fast.  I don't have to
put any mounts into the rc file.  Again, I'm lazy... especially when I
can get the job done with less work using a different method.

I also don't believe in stateless protocols for file sharing.  NFS seems
to be implementing file locking which I believe means it is no longer
a stateless protocol.
-- 
---------------------------------
UUCP: {uunet, ihnp4!umn-cs}!hi-csc!giebelhaus
ARPA: hi-csc!giebelhaus@umn-cs.arpa
Nobody I know admits to sharing my opinions.  I don't even have a pet.