From: Jeff Bone (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon May 29 2000 - 22:06:44 PDT
Okay, so fine --- sure --- you're not going to want to access some file randomly
--- say, database lookups, whatever --- over a remote connection due to latency,
locking issues, etc. I fail to see why, oh, say a *text editor* cares much
about remote vs. local, as long as the semantics are grossly the same. Vi works
fine for me over NFS, as do a number of other apps I can mention. ;-)
There's nothing the Office apps need or assume that I can think of where any
distinction between remote and local are necessary or even useful. Ergo,
factoring that code into the filesystem should've been a no brainer, rather than
factoring it into some kind of client-side lib and paying the integration cost N
Mark Baker wrote:
> At 10:06 PM 5/29/00 -0500, you wrote:
> >Oh, well, I guess then any form of Network filesystem is a bad idea, since
> >you say is universally true of all networked r/w file access -wrt- any app.
> Not any app, just those apps making the kind of assumptions I mentioned.
> Dave wrote;
> >We've had filesharing for quite some time and the world hasn't fallen apart
> Filesharing is one app without any of those assumptions.
> Would it change your life if gas prices went up by an order of magnitude?
> Of course it would. Same goes for remote file access.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 29 2000 - 22:13:56 PDT