From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Jun 17 13:00:08 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id NAA23798
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 13:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nda.nda.com (fw1.NDA.COM [204.57.47.254])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA23786
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 13:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (kevin@localhost) by nda.nda.com (8.7.4/8.6.4) id PAA26484; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 15:58:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Kevin Lyda <kevin@NDA.COM>
Message-Id: <199606171958.PAA26484@nda.nda.com>
Subject: Re: BSDI 2.0 vs. FreeBSD 2.x
To: dennis@etinc.com (Dennis)
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 15:58:49 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199606171841.OAA01559@etinc.com> from "Dennis" at Jun 17, 96 02:41:35 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> True, however BSD is marketing themselves as an internet gateway, where
> NFS is not as important. And now that FreeBSD has a Netware compatible
> server available....the option to dump NFS (which I really dont want to use
> on my Windows workstations anyways) is more than viable. The Netware
> stuff (although not free) is a lot nicer (and faster) than NFS.

how can you justify that?  is netware an inherently faster protocol
than nfs?  or is this just an implementation issue?

kevin