[TUHS] Tracing origins of errno names/numbers

[Michael Davidson]

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 at pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> --- On *Thu, 3/31/11, Random832 <random832 at 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 at minnie.tuhs.org
>> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>>
>>