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
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. :)