RFS vs. NFS

[Eduardo Krell]

In article <17056 at beta.UUCP> hwe at beta.UUCP (Skip Egdorf) writes:

>Naturally RFS preserves full Unix semantics. Why would AT&T
>want to encourage you to use all those VMS Vaxen, Lisp Machines,
>PCs, when they can lock you in with FULL UNIX SEMANTICS?

You're completely missing the point. When I have a network of Suns,
Vaxen and other boxes running UNIX, I DEFINITELY WANT UNIX file
system semantics on remote files. I don't want my programs to
be aware of the fact that the file they're operating on is remote.
This is what is meant by UNIX file system semantics: the behavior
is the same whether the file is local or not. It's called transparency.

And AT&T is not trying to lock you into AT&T products by pushing RFS;
there are a lot of non AT&T boxes running System V Release 3 and RFS.
    
    Eduardo Krell                   AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ

    UUCP: {ihnp4,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell		ARPA: ekrell at ulysses.att.com