On Fri, 4 Feb 2000 09:52:30 +0100 (MET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Raphael Quinet) said:
>I disagree. This would only encourage some users to re-compile their
>own version of the Gimp in a private directory in order to get around
>the hardcoded limits.
Frankly, I disagree. Systems where admins are likely to impose such
restrictions are going to be ones where users don't have enough space
to compile private copies of Gimp.
>Being a system administrator myself, I believe that an admin should
>always suggest some limits (and maybe use some social engineering to
>encourage users to respect these limits) but should avoid hard
>limits.
It depends on the kind of users you have and the hardware you're
running. Imposing hard limits is sometimes the only way to deal with
certain types of users.
>On the other hand, if ulimits are used to limit the maximum file size
>or CPU usage, there is not much that we could do about it. Same if
>disk quotas are activated. The Gimp can have some control over its
>memory usage, but many parts of the code assume that the disk space
>is unlimited (or is not the main constraint).
Yup. It might be nice to catch SIGXCPU and try to do an orderly
shutdown before the SIGKILL does ya' in, though. :)
Kelly
