(was slashes, now NFS devices)

[David Zink]

Yo McVoy, have you ever heard the word `apologist' associated with anything
pleasant?

So lm at slovax.Eng.Sun.COM (Larry McVoy) babbles:
>In article <14367 at ulysses.att.com> ekrell at ulysses.att.com
	(Eduardo Krell) writes:
>>
>>I don't see how this implies that the client should interpret the
>>special file. What if the client is a PC running DOS?
>I think that you've missed the point.  Special files are merely entry points
>into devices.  It is much more likely that the file makes sense to the client
>than the server.  It has nothing to do with DOS.

No, McVoy, YOU'VE missed the point. The DOS machine should not be told
"Here is a major and minor number, now interpret them locally." Major and minor
numbers CAN ONLY MAKE SENSE to the machine that creates them. Unless you are
running a bunch of clones with identical operating systems. NFS is the EXACT
opposite of a good distributed system for unlike machines. Unfortunately it
is certainly a widespread one. The real reason for the local interpretation
hack is because Sun couldn't be bothered to implement their local devices on
diskless workstations correctly. As in ram based filesystems.

>>And to Unix users, NFS is not stateless. What is rpc.lockd used for?
>Whew!  Where did this come from?  NFS is stateless.  The locking gunk is
This came from NFS, bozo.

>and has been a problematic aspect for some time.  Sorry.  That's one of
A problematic aspect of NFS.

>the main reasons that the locking is a wart on the side.  It's hard to
>get right.
Given that you do everything alse wrong.

>---
>Larry McVoy, Sun Microsystems     (415) 336-7627       ...!sun!lm or lm at sun.com
And corporate shill.

Next time post to comp.sun.advocacy

David Zink.

And if NFS is 'good' because its 'successful' I suppose you'll insist that
MS-DOS is better than Sun-OS?