From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: arnold@skeeve.com (arnold@skeeve.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 07:49:17 -0600
Subject: [TUHS] RFS was: Re: UNIX of choice these days?
In-Reply-To: <CAK7dMtCER7LZ+WmQNRNH-YwYspD6jL7W370Q67Vou0Rp+YWv=Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c38ba7b5-e867-93a3-14a2-c61c90bb49b5@kilonet.net>
 <alpine.BSF.2.21.1709201036150.89458@aneurin.horsfall.org>
 <20170923091704.GD10152@darioniedermann.it>
 <CANuZA8QHNn=6Gg-Sm20s-0PSsS7y26c=uNbNETUX74Tx1A=DWQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALMnNGgMSmqQ56r7xTRNdrDYfRiMieQ48kuZfWtSKd+yjmP2tg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP6exYKxC2g06dSRiM8-0BLN08AEWyO-8a0VAcy3vP4H3-8o8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAC20D2MKSzQEfmD0dnKYv-0V00TkL6f_-Dv4Gs1diOrBLS8x3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <b6e8b71c-ba04-bbfb-00db-c371ee62cdb8@kilonet.net>
 <CAC20D2PYANmz2=oWCHX6h3jM5bxFBbzQZHDZXP00idyw+fwDZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <201709270844.v8R8i2kd021180@freefriends.org>
 <CAK7dMtBkpreyncAoc-CPsUgFeMvQpdBEynX3pmS-8Z0KXn8Y1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAC20D2NU6ErExdOuT6PNucf4VhuLKwW1=AcbaOdKtV3vocrFkg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK7dMtCER7LZ+WmQNRNH-YwYspD6jL7W370Q67Vou0Rp+YWv=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <201709281349.v8SDnHp2005910@freefriends.org>

Kevin Bowling <kevin.bowling at kev009.com> wrote:

> I guess alternatively, what was interesting or neat, about RFS, if
> anything?  And what was bad?

Good: Stateful implementation, remote devices worked.

Bad: Sent binary over the wire, making interoperability harder. Also,
at System V Relese 3 AT&T made the licensing terms much harder for
the big vendors to swallow (Dec, IBM, HP ...) so many of them didn't
bother. I don't remember the details; something like having to pass
a validation suite to be called "UNIX" and who knows what else.

As others have noted, the Unix wars were a sad, sad story, and I'd
as soon not see the details rehashed endlessly. But licensing was
a big factor in the non-adoption of RFS, not just the technical side.
Sigh.

Arnold