Kevin Bowling <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I guess alternatively, what was interesting or neat, about RFS, if
> anything? And what was bad?
Good: Stateful implementation, remote devices worked.
Bad: Sent binary over the wire, making interoperability harder.
Also, at System V Relese 3 AT&T made the licensing terms much harder for the big vendors to swallow (Dec, IBM, HP ...) so many of them didn't
I don't remember the details; something like having to pass
a validation suite to be called "UNIX" and who knows what else.
As others have noted, the Unix wars were a sad, sad story, and I'd
as soon not see the details rehashed endlessly.
But licensing was a big factor in the non-adoption of RFS, not just the technical side.