🚀 go-pugleaf

Joe Pato makes a case for distributed systems based on Tanenbaum's
recent ACM CS survey.  The problem, again, is degree of coupling.
Consider another, recent text:

%A M. Ajmone Marsan
%A G. Balbo
%A G. Conte
%T Performance Models of Multiprocessor Systems
%S Computer Systems Series
%I MIT Press
%D 1986
%K Book, text, Torino Multiprocessor, TOMP, Markov modeling,
queueing network models, MVA, Stochastic Petri Networks, common memory,
shared memory, bus architectures,
%X As pointed out by the authors, the book does not cover more advanced
multiprocessor interconnection networks (MINs).

Marsan, et al. put distributed systems into three classes (pp. 101):
computer networks, multiprocessors, and `special' parallel machines
(quotes are mine).  I find it hard to try and separate some of these
issues when I maintain The Parallel Processing (multiprocessor/distributed
processing) Bibliography [ACM CAN, March 1985].  Many of the issues
are identical, only the timing is off to protect the names of the innocent.  

Note: I am not recommending this book, only that a diversity of
definitions exist including Philip Enslow's book, Kuck's papers,
Satyanarayanan's book, numerous IEEE Tutorials and so forth.
Distributed systems should be for than just file systems (Newcastle,
Clusters, LOCUS, etc.).  Additionally, it appears the application is
also important: Tandem, Parallel, Stratus, 3B20Ds, etc. etc. have
different topology requirements than follow-ons to Crays, etc.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,nike,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene