vic@zen.co.uk (Victor Gavin) (06/18/89)
I've just found out (the hard way) that NFS only supports the first 8 group of groups. Now (short of making a mess of the group file) I'm stuck with doing `newgrp' to get access to files on remote machines. This really p*sses me off. It seems that everytime I hear something about NFS it's bad news: either some security problems, bugs or just some stupid limitation. It's almost as bad as Yellow Pages! (which also came from the people that brought us NFS). I don't suppose that HP/the rest of the world are going to come up with some better protocol/network environment. vic -- Victor Gavin Zengrange Limited vic@zen.co.uk Greenfield Road ..!mcvax!ukc!zen.co.uk!vic Leeds England +44 532 489048 LS9 8DB
shankar@hpclscu.HP.COM (Shankar Unni) (06/21/89)
> I don't suppose that HP/the rest of the world are going to come up > with some better protocol/network environment. And if we do, someone out there will beat up on us for producing something "non-standard". ---- Shankar ("damned if you do, damned if you don't") Unni. These opinions are mine and mine only and do not reflect in any way on those of my employer, so there!
daver@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM (David Rabinowitz) (06/23/89)
>> I don't suppose that HP/the rest of the world are going to come up >> with some better protocol/network environment. >And if we do, someone out there will beat up on us for producing something >"non-standard". That's right - you can't replace successful standards. Resign yourself to living with CP/M and Visicalc forever.
vic@zen.co.uk (Victor Gavin) (06/23/89)
In article <1340058@hpclscu.HP.COM> shankar@hpclscu.HP.COM (Shankar Unni) writes: >> I don't suppose that HP/the rest of the world are going to come up >> with some better protocol/network environment. > >And if we do, someone out there will beat up on us for producing something >"non-standard". Having something better doesn't mean that you have to give up compatability with the existing standard, just provide an alternative which is better, stronger, faster... >Shankar ("damned if you do, damned if you don't") Unni. vic -- Victor Gavin Zengrange Limited vic@zen.co.uk Greenfield Road ..!mcvax!ukc!zen.co.uk!vic Leeds England +44 532 489048 LS9 8DB
brian@apollo.COM (Brian Holt) (06/29/89)
>>> I don't suppose that HP/the rest of the world are going to come up >>> with some better protocol/network environment. > >>And if we do, someone out there will beat up on us for producing something >>"non-standard". Actually, we already have something better, but it just doesn't run under HP/UX! HP's DomainOS operating system (SysV.3 & 4.3 BSD) includes support for a fully transparent network environment (and, by the way we have been beat up for it being non-standard) in addition to the standard stuff. OSF currently has a Request for Technology out for just this area. When we start shipping machines that use OSFix (or whatever they call it), I assume we'll support whatever new thing they come out with, and it will be a standard. -- UUCP: {decvax,mit-eddie,umix}!apollo!brian Internet: brian@apollo.COM [ I wonder when this will become apollo.hp.com...] QOTD: "An employee of the Apollo Division of the Hewlett-Packard Company"
frank@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Frank G. Fiamingo) (06/30/89)
brian@apollo.COM writes: >Actually, we already have something better, but it just doesn't run under >HP/UX! HP's DomainOS operating system (SysV.3 & 4.3 BSD) includes >support for a fully transparent network environment (and, by the way >we have been beat up for it being non-standard) in addition to the >standard stuff. > What is DomainOS and how does it differ from HP/UX? What systems does it run on? Frank frank@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu