On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:06:14AM -0500, nate at refried.org wrote: > NFS > - Uses UNIX native permissions > - Uses standard unix file system tools (chmod, chown, etc) > AFS > - Uses fine grained ACLs (read, lookup, insert, delete, write, lock, > admin) > - Comes with it's own file system tools (fs, pts, etc) Are these supposed to pe points in AFS's favor? I know that I have enough trouble trying to explain standard *nix-style permissions to my users (and am glad that I've been able to sidestep the issue in most cases through the use of 'chmod g+s dirname' and 'umask 002'). I don't think that trying to show them how to use something more complex would get very far. Ditto on having two distinct sets of filesystem tools. Even for myself, I'm not sure that I'd want to use AFS after seeing those two points, simply because I have better things to do than try to remember that I use _these_ commands in directory X and _those_ commands in directory Y. > Not that I wanted to start an NFS vs AFS flamewar. Me neither. I know nothing about AFS except what's on your bullet lists. But, having seen them, I can't see why anyone would willingly use AFS unless it's in a 100% AFS environment. Even then, switching command sets seems like a high price to pay, as it means discarding a large hunk of prior knowledge and rendering a substantial majority of *nix reference materials irrelevant. (And, yes, I'm fully aware that I'd switch sides real quick if you s/NFS/Windows/ and s/AFS/linux/ but I'm not that worried about the inconsistency.) -- When we reduce our own liberties to stop terrorism, the terrorists have already won. - reverius Innocence is no protection when governments go bad. - Tom Swiss