From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <7c8f85adcb814481d3e48d704602489b@plan9.bell-labs.com> From: "Russ Cox" To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] none attaches a fs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 08:37:07 -0400 Topicbox-Message-UUID: f4f5554c-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 > Is there a reason that the behaviour of fs(4) is different > from that of kfs? kfs's treating of none looks more > reasonable to me. Fs and kfs diverged long ago. The kfs network policy is more tuned to being in an untrusted environment, whereas fs just isn't. There's no particular reason, except that kfs has been used in a few untrusted environments, so it picked up these things. Some day we'll have only one file server. Russ