(was slashes, now NFS devices)

[Boyd Roberts]

In article <thurlow.668528418 at convex.convex.com> thurlow at convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes:
>
>Of course vendors ship implementations.  I contend that there are a
>lot of good implementations of NFS out there, based on testing at
>Connectathon.  If you ever actually *use* NFS sometime, you might
>come to the same conclusion.
>

A good implementation?  Of a totally broken protocol?

NFS is a kludge.  If it was designed to run (predominately) with UNIX
machines, then why oh why doesn't it support UNIX file-system semantics?
The whole point of a file-system is to provide a reliable, predictable
set of semantics.  UNIX file-systems do.  What NFS does is something
entirely different and fundamentally broken.

The uniformity of the the file-system is one of UNIX's great strengths
which gets thrown out the window when you NFS mount something.


Boyd Roberts			boyd at necisa.ho.necisa.oz.au

``When the going gets wierd, the weird turn pro...''