RFS vs. NFS

[Robert C. White Jr.]

in article <7675 at ncoast.UUCP>, allbery at ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) says:
> Perhaps what you describe is "transparent" under some definition, but to Joe
> End-User what you describe is a discontinuity:  the file is "on both systems"
> but only useable on one of them.  As far as the end user is concerned, the
> network isn't transparent, it just reached out and punched him in the nose.

I will aplaud you when you write the "universal binary translator" capible
of allowing _any_ binary to run on _any_ machine.  RFS & NFS are [read
my lips if necessary] "FILE-SYSTEM EXPORT LINKS"  they are not intended
to convert object/load/instruction fromats [on a binary executable level]
into a format capible of running on whatever machine you happen to
be living on at that moment.

RFS allows you to make files available to different machines.  It does
this quite nicely, thankyou.  It does this so nicely in fact, that you
can even access special devices through the network [though you DO
have to be a little careful here].

As to your moaning about a universal exchange system, I sugguest you
write one and then try to market it.  If it's any good, I'm shure you
will make a mint.  Meanwhile, put up or shut up.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<<  All the STREAM is but a page,<<|>>	Robert C. White Jr.		   <<
<<  and we are merely layers,	 <<|>>	nusdhub!rwhite  nusdhub!usenet	   <<
<<  port owners and port payers, <<|>>>>>>>>"The Avitar of Chaos"<<<<<<<<<<<<
<<  each an others audit fence,	 <<|>>	Network tech,  Gamer, Anti-christ, <<
<<  approaching the sum reel.	 <<|>>	Voter, and General bad influence.  <<
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
##  Disclaimer:  You thought I was serious???......  Really????		   ##
##  Interogative:  So... what _is_ your point?			    ;-)	   ##
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^