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.