Re: RFC 1037 NFILE implementations around?
- From: Tim Bradshaw <tfb+google@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:09:58 -0700 (PDT)
On Sep 30, 8:51 am, "jos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <jos...@corporate-
world.lisp.de> wrote:
Well, you can think of the SUN as a networked I/O coprocessor.
Yes. (Except, of course they ran Lisp faster as well, albeit with a
laughably bad development environment).
Anyway, my point was specifically limited to disputing the "NFS sucks
so it couldn't be worse than that" statement someone made, which I
think was just obviously a stupid thing to say. It had it's problems
of course.
--tim
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: RFC 1037 NFILE implementations around?
- From: Tim Bradshaw
- Re: RFC 1037 NFILE implementations around?
- References:
- Re: RFC 1037 NFILE implementations around?
- From: kodifik
- Re: RFC 1037 NFILE implementations around?
- From: Tim Bradshaw
- Re: RFC 1037 NFILE implementations around?
- From: George Neuner
- Re: RFC 1037 NFILE implementations around?
- From: Tim Bradshaw
- Re: RFC 1037 NFILE implementations around?
- From: joswig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: RFC 1037 NFILE implementations around?
- Prev by Date: Re: Lisp Design Patterns
- Next by Date: Re: 419 spammer harvested address
- Previous by thread: Re: RFC 1037 NFILE implementations around?
- Next by thread: Re: RFC 1037 NFILE implementations around?
- Index(es):