RFS vs. NFS

[Robert Bownes]

In article <7556 at brl-smoke.ARPA>, gwyn at brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes:
> In article <275 at ksr.UUCP> fdr at ksr.UUCP (Franklin Reynolds) writes:
> >NFS seems obsolete to me. It was ok (though just barely) when 
> >it was introduced but it hasn't kept up with technology.
> 
> I agree with your comments, but to be fair it should be noted
> that one of the explicit design goals of NFS was to work not
> only with UNIX filesystems but also with MS-DOS filesystems.
> (Apparently somebody thought there was money to be extracted
> from the IBM PC fad.)  I don't know if NFS was actually much
> used with MS-DOS.  I do know that being first and making it

	NFS was designed to be OS independant. If I may be so bold as to quote 
from the paper originally written about NFS, it is intended for
"A heterogeneous OS environment" and "Should be easily extensible, should
only implement protocol not dependant on the OS".

	When I first went to work for Sun, we put together a multivendor
testing session in which we had machines running 5 different OS's all 
running NFS and sharing files. One of them was VMS, one was MS-DOS and
PC-NFS, one other I don't remember, and two unix variants. It was kinda
neat to see the PC/AT having an Eagle as drive G: and running SPICE
off a database on the uVAX across the room....

Bob Bownes

Note: Yes, I work for SUN when I'm not pursuing a lower education.
I am also a SUN stockholder.

-- 
Bob Bownes, Aka Keptin Comrade Dr Bobwrench III	|  If I didn't say it, It
bownesrm at beowulf.uucp  (518)-482-8798		|  must be true.
{steinmetz,brspyr1,sun!sunbow}!beowulf!bownesrm	|	- me, tonite -