Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site oblio.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!hplabs!oblio!monte
From: monte@oblio.UUCP (Monte Pickard)
Newsgroups: net.lan
Subject: Re: Transparent Remote File Access Systems: Short Summary
Message-ID: <257@oblio.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 9-Feb-85 01:30:38 EST
Article-I.D.: oblio.257
Posted: Sat Feb  9 01:30:38 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 11-Feb-85 03:41:00 EST
Organization: Counterpoint Computers
Lines: 56

Thanx for posting the results to your search for 'Transparent Remote
File Access Systems'.  

I am somewhat surprised at all the entries in your search.  When we
first demo'd the Plexus NOS entry at UNICOM in San Diego in 1983, there
were no others that provided remote transparent access.

Just two years later, I am somewhat sceptical that all those on 
your list provide 'transparent' access to remote file systems.

I would like to offer the following minimum definition for qualifying
as a 'transparent' remote file access system:

	* all files are accessed with 'path-names' that have
	  the same syntax for local files and remote files.
	  (this does not mean location-independence, just 
	   same syntax)

	* all applications running, that allow access to the
	  file system through path-name parameters (i.e normal
	  Unix applications (cmd's) like cp, ls, cc, etc.) must
	  be able to run, without modification, on files that
	  are local or remote, with inter-system operablility.
	  (syntax is not good enough, functionality for file and
	   directories, at least, must be provided in the Unix case.
	   A path element must be a valid 'local' Unix object,
	   transparently)

This is only a minimum, I would like to see more stringent OS interface
standards for local/remote file access (especially in Unix), 
but this seems to me to be a minimum for the 'transparent' case.  

I am not knocking the non-transparent case.  Getting the job done, is 
getting the job done, anyway!  Functionality, regardless of how cumbersome,
is better than not being able to do it (as many systems can not).

Also, this should be true for all 'transparent' file system interfaces,
be it Unix to Unix, Unix to PC/MS-DOS, MS-DOS to MS-DOS, or X-OS to Y-OS.

The Worknet, Sun, LOCUS, Newcastle, and Plexus sytems do this from my
standpoint.  It is arguable which does the best job at transparency.  I 
do not know if the others you listed do.

I am looking forward to your/others summaries of each systems functionality
from the transparent aspects of local vs. remote file system access.

When a standard does emerge, it is our duty to have influenced it for 
the overall good of the networking industry in general, not just for
the benifit of few (i.e each individual start-up or big company).

To me, inter-operability of the various emerging operating system 'standards',
is essencial in the development of the computer industry as a whole.

Monte Pickard
Counterpoint Computers
..!ucbvax!hplabs!oblio!monte