From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" Message-ID: <3AFFF3DF.F70434C4@null.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: , <3AFD060F.29F72B32@p21.kiev.ua>, <3AFEEEEB.21387D41@p21.kiev.ua> Subject: [9fans] Re: Arguments concerning cross mounting /usr/local, /opt Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 15:29:26 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 9faa2514-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 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.