Re: [TUHS] Tracing origins of errno names/numbers

I also looked up EDOTDOT and found reference to RFS but not much info about it. Why was it not used? Not reliable enough? I have often thought that the stateless, idempotent NFS protocol leaves a lot to be desired due to its inability to implement unix semantics (as discussed in the wikipedia stub article on RFS), has this been improved with NFS4? Should RFS be revived and used? Some of its features sounded quite attractive (location transparency, etc). It does appear to have the ability to execute a program remotely?? What happens with regard to PIDs, home directory etc in this case? Does anyone know? cheers, Nick On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Michael Davidson < michael_davidson(a)pacbell.net&gt; wrote: > --- On *Thu, 3/31/11, Random832 &lt;random832(a)fastmail.us&gt;* wrote: > > > EDOTDOT caught my eye for some reason - maybe because it's the only one > you attributed to linux in a long list of SVr1 ones... what were 72 > through 76 in SVR1? > > > As the comment indicates, EDOTDOT came from "RFS" - the almost never used > "remote file system" that was (optionally, I think) part of System V Release > 3. > > As best I can recall, that is also where several of the other error numbers > in the 72 - 79 range probably came from. > > Michael Davidson > > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > >