1 Apr
2011
1 Apr
'11
9:26 a.m.
Regardless of its technical merits (and I suspect that the implementation may have been
pretty bad) RFS was doomed by AT&T's licensing policies and general ineptitude at
marketing UNIX. Similarly the widespread adoption of NFS was driven by the fact that Sun
made it a de facto standard.
On Thu Mar 31st, 2011 7:51 PM PDT Nick Downing wrote:
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> wrote:
> --- On *Thu, 3/31/11, Random832 <random832(a)fastmail.us>* 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
>
>
1 Apr
1 Apr
9:38 a.m.
New subject: Tracing origins of errno names/numbers
Michael Davidson scripsit:
Regardless of its technical merits (and I suspect that
the
implementation may have been pretty bad) RFS was doomed by AT&T's
licensing policies and general ineptitude at marketing UNIX. Similarly
the widespread adoption of NFS was driven by the fact that Sun made
it a de facto standard.
A familiar tale: NeWS vs. X was exactly the same story, only with the players
reversed.
--
John Cowan cowan(a)ccil.org http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Dievas dave dantis; Dievas duos duonos --Lithuanian proverb
Deus dedit dentes; deus dabit panem --Latin version thereof
Deity donated dentition;
deity'll donate doughnuts --English version by Muke Tever
God gave gums; God'll give granary --Version by Mat McVeagh
9:40 a.m.
New subject: Tracing origins of errno names/numbers
If people wish to discuss RFS vs NFS, I was there are Sun when all this
happened.
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 08:26:04PM -0700, Michael Davidson wrote:
Regardless of its technical merits (and I suspect that
the implementation may have been pretty bad) RFS was doomed by AT&T's licensing
policies and general ineptitude at marketing UNIX. Similarly the widespread adoption of
NFS was driven by the fact that Sun made it a de facto standard.
On Thu Mar 31st, 2011 7:51 PM PDT Nick Downing wrote:
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com
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> wrote:
> --- On *Thu, 3/31/11, Random832 <random832(a)fastmail.us>* 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
TUHS mailing list
TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs 
11:59 a.m.
New subject: RFS (was: Tracing origins of errno names/numbers)
On Thursday, 31 March 2011 at 20:40:23 -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 08:26:04PM -0700, Michael
Davidson wrote:
Go ahead! I have always wondered what was wrong with RFS, though I
suppose a Sun employee might have a slightly close perspective.
Greg
--
Finger grog(a)FreeBSD.org for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
This message is digitally signed. See
http://www.lemis.com/grog/email/signed-mail.php for more details.
If your Microsoft MUA reports problems, please read
http://tinyurl.com/broken-mua
On Thu Mar 31st, 2011 7:51 PM PDT Nick Downing
wrote:
If people wish to discuss RFS vs NFS, I was there are Sun when all
this happened. On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Michael Davidson
wrote:
Regardless of its technical merits (and I suspect that the
implementation may have been pretty bad) RFS was doomed by AT&T's
licensing policies and general ineptitude at marketing UNIX.
Similarly the widespread adoption of NFS was driven by the fact that
Sun made it a de facto standard. 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.
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?
5013
days inactive
5013
days old
3 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Greg 'groggy' Lehey -
John Cowan -
Larry McVoy -
Michael Davidson