[9fans] Re: Arguments concerning cross mounting /usr/local, /opt

[9fans] Re: Arguments concerning cross mounting /usr/local, /opt

[Alt]

2 "Plaen Nein" users: I guess it might be interesting here:

[skip]

> ????? "Alt" == Alt  ?alter@p21.kiev.ua? writes:
>
>     Alt? Marc D Bumble <marc_bumble@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>     ?? When using UNIX, what are the arguments against cross mounting
>     ?? /usr/local?  Is it better to cross mount /opt?
>
>     Alt? What do you mean under "cross mount" ?
>
> I mean using  NFS to mount /opt and/or /usr/local  across a network of
>
> machines.  I have received excuses that cross mounting the file system
>
> cause non specific incompatibilities.  That cross mounting a directory
>
> may  cause licensing problems  for commercial  software.  Most  of the
>
> excuses, I believe, are nonsense, or should not be a deterrent, but I
> am  not an  OS  specialist.  I  am  seeking something  in writing.   I
>
> thought OSs would be well beyond the stage of standardization by now.
>

! BY THE WAY, there is no such problems in PLAN-9.

> Without cross mounting, systems  quickly degrade into software version
>
> inconsistencies,  maintenance difficulties,  lack  of standardization
> across network nodes,  etc.  Plus it just makes  the admin's life more
>
> difficult.
>

Oh, I understand.
Yea.You see, UNIX is not the best choice for the such things.

PLAN-9 (and probably Oberon) does it much better.

UNIX is a mainframe.

--Alt.

P.S. I have an old idea of the "multy-dimetional file system".
There will be no troubles like this.


>     ?? What was the intended difference between the two mount points?
>
>     Alt? You mean whet difference between /opt and /usr/localWell,
>     Alt? answer is easy.  But first answer me, why the microsoft used
>     Alt? '\' but not '/' in separator in path names ???  ... and why
>     Alt? they used "\h0d\h0a" like a carrier return instead "\h0a" ???
>
>     Alt? Simple, to make the MSux-DOS incompatible with the UNIX.
>     Alt? Same with several UNIXes there was a lot of companies who
>     Alt? made their UNIXes (better say - "UNIX - looklike OSes"), and
>     Alt? they stickup their catalogs in the several places.  Same is
>     Alt? goes with several Linux installations.
>
>     ?? I'm seeking a generic UNIX answer.
>     ??
>
>     Alt? Well, try to check out native UNIX
>     Alt? mans. http://plan9.bell-labs.com
>
>     Alt? --Alt.
>

[skip]

[9fans] Re: Arguments concerning cross mounting /usr/local, /opt

[Douglas A. Gwyn]

Alt wrote:
> > I mean using  NFS to mount /opt and/or /usr/local  across a network of
> > machines.  I have received excuses that cross mounting the file system
> > cause non specific incompatibilities.  That cross mounting a directory
> > may  cause licensing problems  for commercial  software.  Most  of the
> > excuses, I believe, are nonsense, or should not be a deterrent, but I
> > am  not an  OS  specialist.  I  am  seeking something  in writing.   I
> > thought OSs would be well beyond the stage of standardization by now.

> ! BY THE WAY, there is no such problems in PLAN-9.

Plan 9 has no problem with commercial software licensing because there
isn't any.  That's not necessarily an advantage.

The main incompatibility associated with mounting remote file systems
is that executable binary images won't work if the local and remote
architectures differ.  Similarly, application use of (database) files
has to choose either the local or remote filesystem for each file,
and different applications have different requirements, so quite often
the wrong file is accessed.  Plan 9 is more flexible in both of these
areas, but it doesn't totally eliminate such problems.

There actually *is* widespread standardization of the UNIX environment;
see POSIX, Open Group, etc.  However, even a standard ABI does not
totally eliminate all possible problems.

That said, I used a UNIX (Solaris) file server for many years quite
successfully.  

> > Without cross mounting, systems  quickly degrade into software version
> > inconsistencies,  maintenance difficulties,  lack  of standardization
> > across network nodes,  etc.  Plus it just makes  the admin's life more
> > difficult.

There were some administrative difficulties is getting the file server
and local workstations properly synchronized initially, but after that
it did make system software administration much easier (which is the
main reason we resorted to file servers; economics was secondary).

> Yea.You see, UNIX is not the best choice for the such things.
> PLAN-9 (and probably Oberon) does it much better.
> UNIX is a mainframe.

If the fellow needs to use centrally-administered UNIX-based software,
switching him to Plan 9 would only frustrate him.  Eventually he'd
have to use VNC etc. in which case Plan 9's characteristics wouldn't
offer any particular advantage.
\x01\x01\x01\x01