[OpenAFS-devel] Updated redhat workaround patch

[Tim C.]

> > It's got grandiose plans for getting better. In any case, I can
> > definitely see a place for a lightweight read-only client -- for most of
> > our users, that's all they do.
>
> Certainly not ours.  An unauthenticated client or a client without write
> access strikes me as practically worthless.
>
  Well I think that a read-only client is a great start.  It's obviously not
everything, but no one is ever really happy. :^}  But if there was a read-only
client built into the linux kernel, then someone could install a base linux,
set their cell, and go into your AFS tree to obtain the necesary installation
files to get up and running fully.  That way you could use AFS as it was meant
to be.  Currently you have to scp or ftp files over to the computer to get it
setup.
  Another great use of this, we at UMBC have a /usr/local in afs space that
most clients are linked to.  If there was some computer that didn't really need
access to afs cause it had all their files locally, then it could use this
read-only client to get /usr/local.  It's not something they're allowed to
write to anyway, so it's actually better for us.

Just a few words and thoughts. ;)
  Tim

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Craig		These are my opinions and not my employers. :)
OIT-Systems	&	Imaging Research Center
tim@umbc.edu		It's hard to be serious when you're
			naked. - Garfield
-----------------------------------------------------------------------