Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!dayton!meccts!meccsd!mecc!herman!det From: det@herman.UUCP (Derek Terveer) Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions Subject: Re: ulimit considered braindamaged ? Message-ID: <172@herman.UUCP> Date: Sat, 10-Jan-87 00:25:17 EST Article-I.D.: herman.172 Posted: Sat Jan 10 00:25:17 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 11-Jan-87 09:45:44 EST References: <790@maynard.BSW.COM> <166@herman.UUCP> <10943@sun.uucp> Organization: Unisys Inc.-CSD Eagan,MN Lines: 17 Keywords: ulimit SysV irksome Summary: ulimit and other unix generalizations In article <10943@sun.uucp>, guy%gorodish@Sun.COM (Guy Harris) writes: > One hopes that in S5R3 they've at least come to their senses to the extent > of making it a constant tunable without source (one *could* hope they > realize that the "ulimit" scheme is the wrong solution, implement quotas > instead, and either crank the default ulimit up to 2^31-1 or set it to 0 and > have that mean "no limit"). The treatment of the "ulimit problem" (to tell you the truth, I'm not really sure what the "problem" that ulimit is supposed to be solving is..) seems to me to be rather endemic of Unix in general. I.e., the implementation of a general scheme to solve what, to many people, appears to be, by its nature, a specific problem. Disk quotas is one example. My gripe happens to be security. I find the user/group/world security quite cumbersome and tedious to manage as a system administrator with a brood of ~70 users. To me, a security scheme should be a tad more specific than Unix allows. (All right, a lot more specific) Or am I opening up the wrong box with my soliloquy (previously owned by Pandora)?